Preamble

Morning Sitting

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Ten o'clock a.m.

PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

Clause 1

EXCLUSION OF PEERS BY SUCCESSION

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

10.0 a.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I have been asked to make a statement about the purpose of the Preamble to the Bill and its constitutional propriety. As the Committee will see, the Preamble is divided into two parts. The first part, in the first paragraph, summarises the main contents of the Bill. The second paragraph, beginning
And whereas proposals for the purposes aforesaid were presented to Parliament by Command of Her Majesty on 1st November 1968 …
describes the most important recommendations of the White Paper—which, by reference to it, is brought within the ambit of the Bill—to which effect will be given by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.
As the Committee will have noted, the Bill describes the composition of the House of Lords by specifying who may and who may not be Members. But it does not specify how many Members there will be or how they will be selected. Those matters are dealt with in paragraphs 46 to 48 of the White Paper.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) in the second part of the Preamble mention two of the key considerations which will govern the selection of the nominated Members of the reformed House. These key considerations are that the process of nomination should maintain, first, a balance between the parties and, secondly, representation of the various parts of the United Kingdom in the reformed Chamber. The purpose is to crystallise as constitutional conventions the proposals in the White Paper relating to the num-

ber and character of new creations—as I have said, notably the size and party composition of the voting nucleus of the reformed House.
The Preamble is also the vehicle for a statement of intent relating to the representation of Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. It does not mention all the conventions by which the bare bones of the legislation will be covered with flesh. Nor would it be practicable or desirable to do so. But the two most important conventions, politically and constitutionally, in regard to the number of and method of selection of the new Chamber are specied in paragraphs (a) and (b).
The plan for the composition of the reformed Chamber depends on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative and on the advice to be given as to its exercise. The future upper House is to be a nominated one, but the Bill without the Preamble would be silent about the principles to be observed. As it is, the Preamble, by referring to the White Paper, indicates that its proposals about new creations form an integral part of the package from which the Bill derives.
The Preamble constitutes a solemn commitment by the Government, given expression in the Bill, that the composition of the new Chamber will conform with the two major principles of maintaining a balance between the parties and maintaining representation of the various parts of the United Kingdom. It indicates that the Bill is passed by Parliament on the basis of the declarations in the White Paper relating to the number and character of new creations. Although it has no more than a declaratory effect—[Laughter.] I do not know why such an innocent remark should give rise, at this unseemly hour in the morning, to such derision.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Attorney-General: There will be opportunities for interventions later.
Although the Preamble has no more than a declaratory effect, it represents a statement by Parliament of the principles to be observed in selecting the Members of the reformed House, and they acquire greater authority and force than would be possible from a statement in a White Paper or from speeches made by the party leaders. That is the function and purpose of the Preamble.
The working of the proposals on composition will depend on conventions, and the fact that the most salient of these are set out in the Preamble is an indication of the intentions of Parliament about the composition of the upper House, if the Bill is enacted, and of the willingness of all parties to fulfil them while the statement remains in force. The willingness of the parties to fulfil them has been embodied in the agreement of the leaders of the parties in the events which preceded the introduction of the Bill.
As to constitutional propriety, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House last night referred to the authority of Erskine May, in which we read on page 515:
The purpose of a preamble is to state the reasons and intended effects of the proposed legislation. Though a preamble is not often incorporated now in a public bill, it is still employed in bills of great constitutional importance"—
which this Bill clearly is—
or bills to give effect to international conventions …
and I emphasis the succeeding words
in order to place on record the intentions of the framers of the bill.
Perhaps more accurate language would be "the intentions of the Government introducing the Bill." But I hesitate to question the accuracy of the holy writ, so far as the House is concerned, of Erskine May.
The great landmarks in our constitutional history were normally preceded by a Preamble—the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the Act of Union with Scotland, the Parliament Act, 1911, the Government of India Act, 1919 and the Statute of Westminster, 1931. If the House wishes to elaborate the matter, further examples are given in the notes on page 515.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Do they include Pride's purge?

The Attorney-General: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have been detained elsewhere this morning and that we might be spared such a frivolous intervention.
Another statutory precedent where a Preamble explains the Government's intention is to be found in the Royal Titles Act, 1953.
Perhaps I may cite by way of precedents the words found in the second paragraph of the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster, 1931:

… whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of Preamble to this Act …
There follows a description of the constitutional conventions governing the constitutional relationships of members of the Commonwealth and their common allegiance to the Crown.
The Government of India Act, 1919, had a Preamble with similar features. It gives an interesting example of Parliament determining upon principles to apply in the future development of the Government of India which were not set out in the Act itself. In the penultimate paragraph of the Preamble, for instance, one reads:
… whereas concurrently with the gradual development of self-governing institutions in the Provinces of India it is expedient to give to those Provinces in provincial matters the largest measure of independence of the Government of India, which is compatible with the due discharge by the latter of its own responsibilities:
In the Royal Titles Act, 1953, the Preamble is again used to explain the intention of the Act—namely, to permit the style and Titles of the Crown to be altered. It says:
Whereas it is expedient that the style and titles at present appertaining to the Crown should be altered so as to reflect more clearly the existing constitutional relations of the Commonwealth to one another and their recognition of the Crown as the symbol of their free association and of the Sovereign as the Head of the Commonwealth:
And whereas it was agreed between representatives of Her Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon the month of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, that there is need for an alteration thereof which, whilst permitting of the use in relation to each of these countries of a form suiting its particular circumstances, would retain a substantial element common to all:
That is an illustration of the use of the Preamble as a constitutional instrument to express the intention of the Government introducing the legislation.
It is interesting that the learned author of Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, which is the standard work in this field, used the phrase,
The Preamble of a Statute has been said to be a good means of finding out its meaning and, as it were, a key to the understanding of it.
In the light of these precedents, I submit that, to use the language of the Statute of Westminster, it is "meet and proper" that the Preamble should be a part of this Bill.

10.15 a.m.

Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that considered statement, but I cannot say that its effect is to help us in the problems with which we are dealing. He has called upon his great wealth of talent, experience and knowledge to make many points. Clearly, I cannot deal with them all off the cuff, but there are a number to which I should like briefly to refer.
I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman slightly misunderstands the point. He was talking about defending the constitutional propriety of the Preamble. What we are concerned about is its legal effect, which is quite different. The Under-Secretary of State, Home Department shakes his head, but we should know what we are concerned about. We want to know the legal effects; we want to know what legal obligations the Preamble imposes on anyone in the future.
On the constitutional propriety, I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's examples were very good. He quoted Erskine May on the Preamble expressing the intention of the framers of the legislation. That, presumably, means explaining what they intended the law to do, which is quite different from this. He also talked about the Statute of Westminster describing the conventions. It described conventions that existed, whereas the Preamble we are considering purports to create a convention, which is totally different.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the use of the word "expedient". That describes a fact or belief underlying the action taken by the House. It does not purport to give legal effect to anything or impose a legal obligation.
Finally, the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted from Maxwell that a Preamble is designed to help to understand the meaning of the legislation. Fair enough. But, once again, this is not the argument. This part of the Preamble is designed, so far as one can make out, not to explain the legal effect of the Bill but to add something of a quasi-legal nature to it.
Therefore, I must return to the main point: what is the legal effect? What did the Prime Minister mean on Second Reading in talking about statutory recognition being given to the White Paper?

I must confess that for a time I thought the Attorney-General was going to confuse counsel even further. He used some very odd phrases about the Preamble bringing the White Paper into the ambit of the Bill. What does that mean? It does not make it part of the Bill. If it is not part of the Bill, it is a White Paper which we know all about and has to be recognised as a fact of life.
The Attorney-General talked about crystallising the White Paper as a convention. What does that mean? Can one create a constitutional convention by crystallising it? How does one crystallise it—by writing it down on a piece of green paper, whereas before it was written on a piece of white paper which has been before the House?
I thought for a time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made the whole thing more confused. But he made it crystal clear when he went on to say that the Preamble was only declaratory. It has no legal effect, and I do not see that it has any other effect. That is the impression the Committee will receive from his statement.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about a package, about agreement between the two sides of the House, and about commitments. That is just not so as I must emphasise once again. We entered into the discussions about the possible reform of another place, I think rightly, and I still stand by my belief, as I have said time and again, that these proposals represent as good a reform by agreement as one could hope to get. I will not budge from that. Clearly, the talks were broken down by the Prime Minister. The Government have deliberately, openly and avowedly introduced this Measure as their own Government Measure to which no one else is committed. As I see it, the purpose of the Bill can only be to bring into our law the proposals in the Bill. Therefore, we must proceed upon the assumption that the Preamble is shown to be, once again to use the Attorney-General's words, wholly declaratory—in other words, legally meaningless.

Mr. Michael Foot: I think it would be churlish of all of us who engaged in last night's debate if we did not thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for the care and


trouble he has taken in preparing and making his statement. Although it was his absolute duty to do so, it is none the less a matter of courtesy that we should say to him that we think that he is a wiser man this morning than he was last night; and perhaps the Government are wiser this morning than they were last night. I think that the position which faced us last night was a very unsatisfactory one.
Belated though the assistance of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was, we are none the less grateful for his persuasive efforts in ensuring that the Attorney-General assisted us this morning, if indeed the Attorney-General has assisted us. I am sure that it was my right hon. and learned Friend's intention to assist us, and I give him the utmost credit for seeking to secure the good will of the Committee in this matter. However, we must very carefully examine what he said.
I take, first, the claim which was made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and reiterated this morning by the Attorney-General. This claim was based upon Erskine May. I will not delay the House by reading the passage again, because it was read yesterday. What appears in Erskine May confirms the view put by us rather than that put by the Government. The paragraph which appears on page 515 is the only reference to preambles in Erskine May. A footnote appears somewhere else it is true, but the paragraph on page 515 is a general statement of what preambles are for, and how they can be used.
If it was in accordance with previous constitutional precedents that preambles should be used for the purpose of making these general declarations, then I think that it would have been stated in Erskine May; but that is not what it states in Erskine May. It is a considerably narrower definition of a preamble. Therefore, the very fact that Erskine May does not set out the use of a preamble in the terms that were proposed by the Attorney-General is a confirmation of the fact that if a preamble is to be used for a somewhat different purpose it must be explained and justified to the Committee in much more extensive terms.
I grant that the Attorney-General was entitled to say that last night we were questioning not only the legality of the matter, which I will come to in a few minutes following upon the point made by the right hon. Member for Barnet, but also the propriety of the matter. It was, therefore, right that the Attorney-General should apply his mind to this question as he has done, because I certainly raised the question of the propriety of the matter in the sense that I thought that it was a departure from the precedents. We must, therefore, see whether the three major precedents quoted by the Attorney-General stand up to examination.
As the right hon. Member for Barnet said, it is clear that the Statute of Westminster, 1931, is not a precedent which applies in this case, because the Preamble there was a declaration stating what was thought to be the position at the time, which is obviously very different from a preamble which introduces an entirely novel arrangement. So I do not think that there can be any comparison with the 1931 Act. That precedent falls, as I think that the Attorney-General, on consideration, will agree.
I think that the same applies, though perhaps not to the same degree, to the Royal Titles Act, 1953, because the Preamble there is to a great extent a description of what was the prevailing understanding. So, if we are to have a precedent for what is proposed, we are left with the Government of India Act, 1935—

The Attorney-General: 1919.

Mr. Foot: I thought it was 1935. It is very interesting if it is 1919. I have not had time to look up the 1919 Act since last night, but I am very doubtful whether there was any reference in that Act itself to any of the proposals. However, there may have been. It may be the case that the Preamble there referred to the operation of the provincial councils, but there was nothing in the Act which did. If that were so, it might be a precedent, although, there again, it was obviously intended that Parliament should legislate again later. I should think that it is very likely that anybody who had the time to examine the 1919 Act would find that my belief is right. It is certainly true of the Government


of India Act, 1935, that these matters were incorporated in some form of legislation; and, therefore, these were matters which were capable of being incorporated in legislation.
If that is so, that precedent must also fall, because the question of how the Prerogative is to be exercised to appoint people to sit in the other place is not a matter that can be incorporated in legislation. That is why it is not in the Bill. That is why it is put in the Preamble.
There are only three precedents. We were told yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the Attorney-General would come here this morning weighed down with precedents. We have had three. Those three do not stand up to examination and do not deal with the situation which touches on the further and more important question of what are the legal consequences of this declaratory act.
Before coming to that aspect of it, I want to take the question about its being a key to the understanding of the Bill. The words of the Preamble do not even state exactly how the Prerogative is to be exercised. They do not incorporate the whole of the White Paper. It could have been done more explicitly in those terms, although it would have been extremely clumsy; because, if all the passages of the White Paper which are not incorprated in the Bill had been incorporated in the Preamble, the Preamble would have been three times as long as the Bill, but it would at least have set out the position accurately.
As it is, the Preamble is not a clear declaration. If the purpose is that it should be a key to our understanding of the Bill, the key does not fit the lock—it does not turn. The key describes only in the very vaguest terms what the understanding is. To discover what the key means we must examine the speech of the Attorney-General. Those who in years to come may be examining this matter will have to examine my right hon. and learned Friend's speech. They will then be referred back to the White Paper. Then people will ask, "What is the binding nature in any sense whatsoever of a White Paper?"
Although a declaration in a preamble may be slightly more imposing than a declaration in a White Paper, it is certainly not legally binding in any sense. All of us, including the Attorney-General, are agreed about that.
So if it is said, as it must be said, that what is in the White Paper is not binding, and if it is also admitted that what is in the Preamble is not in any sense binding, we are confronted with what could be a serious clash between legislation passed in the House of Commons and the exercise of the Prerogative. It is no good somebody saying in the British House of Commons in the year 1969 that the Prerogative will always be exercised in a particular way. I could not on the spur of the moment recite the definition of "Prerogative", but I presume that it means something like that one does not have to refer to anybody else in order to exercise it. I would not be bound by that definition; but the whole point about a Prerogative is that one is not bound by somebody else: it is an arbitrary act, which is no doubt carried out following representations.
What we are trying to do but failing to do here is to incorporate in some form of legislation how the Prerogative is to be exercised. It is impossible to do that. It is like trying to catch hold of an eel—it cannot be done. We should not attempt it. It is very foolish to attempt something which is impossible of achievement.
10.30 a.m.
What we are trying to do is to specify how the Prerogative can be exercised, but the House has not the power to write it down in these terms. I wish we could. I am in favour of a republic. I believe that it would be more satisfactory. It would be one way of clearing up these disputes. But, as long as we have a system under which a Prerogative is exercised, it is not possible for the Government of the day to say that they will lay down in a White Paper or a Preamble how that Prerogative will be exercised for all time.
The most famous example of the creation of peers is that which arose at the time of the Parliament Act, 1911. On an earlier occasion a large number of creations were threatened over the Irish Home Rule question. Another famous occasion occurred in 1711, when the


House of Lords was a more radical assembly perhaps than it is today. It had a Whig majority. In order to force through Tory legislation at the time to put through the Treaty of Utrecht, Queen Anne created 12 new peers. It was a shameful episode.

Mr. Powell: Perhaps I can intervene on a point of historical fact. While it has been commonly believed until recently that that was the purpose of the creation of the "Tory dozen", it has recently been shown that the purpose, since the Tories were dependent upon the Scottish representative peers, was to avoid the necessity of bribing them, which was proving so expensive. It gave the Tory Government a majority without the necessity of using the Scottish representative peers, which was proving expensive.

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was unaware that there was that commendable aspect to such a disgraceful episode. I am seeking to underline that the exercise of the Prerogative on that occasion was something which up to the moment it happened was thought to be well nigh impossible. A sensation was caused in London by the creation of these 12 peers. Jonathan Swift, writing to Stella, tore open his letter to announce what had happened and what a sensation had been caused by the exercise of the Prerogative in such a manner never seen before, and exercised perhaps partly for the murky purpose described by the right hon. Gentleman but also for the purpose of securing that Measures passed by a Tory Government in this House should get through another place.
It was done despite all the conventions and beliefs as to the way in which the Queen should exercise her Prerogative. The way I am applying it to the present proposals is that whatever may be the claims of the Government of the day, it may well be that in a first-class political crisis, in which the destinies of the country may be thought to turn on what is going to occur—as happened in 1711, when the whole question of peace and war in Europe depended on such a vote—one could get a situation in which the speedy discharge of such a measure depended on whether the Government could get a majority in the other place.
In such circumstances, not only the Monarch but the Government would seek to use their powers at the time to create peers, even if there were a preamble which said they could not do so, even though it was in defiance of the White Paper. In such circumstances, there would be arguments whether it was right for the Government to take such a course. In such circumstances, I say that the Government would not be bound by an agreement saying that they would only appoint a certain number of peers at the beginning of the session or that they would only have a majority of so many, give and take a few cross-benchers.
One cannot lay this down in statute. It was difficult enough to lay it down in the package deal between the two Front Benches. Certainly one cannot lay it down in a Preamble. It is absolutely wrong to try and deal with such matters in a Preamble. If the Government want to get this Measure through, they should not stretch the meaning or application of the Preamble in order to do it but should find some other way. They could find another way, and if they do they will still meet my opposition; but they could do it, as was suggested last night, in a way that would be much more open. I hope they will take that course because I intend to oppose the Preamble and the Government's attempt to stretch it to such a degree that it is insulting to the House of Commons.
There are further advantages for the Government in the course we suggest. If they withdraw this part of the Preamble referring to the deal about creating peers and maintaining a Government majority, they could incorporate it in a Resolution of the House, proposed by the Government, when the Opposition Front Bench could state clearly whether they supported it or not, as could other right hon. and hon. Members, for this is eminently a constitutional question on which every hon. Member should state his position, irrespective of party, with the same kind of free vote as we are having on these proceedings.
If this were done by Resolution of the House, there would be no breach of constitutional precedent. There would be no attempt to use the Preamble for a purpose for which preambles were not intended. It would be a reasonable and sensible way of doing it. Everything


would be above-board. Everyone would know what was proposed. One might oppose or dislike it, but at least it would be above-board and clear.
If at a later date there were a breach of the undertaking and the Government of the day sought to alter the situation, it would not then mean a clash between an Act passed by this House and the Prerogative, which is the situation we could have if we pass this Measure. As I have said, I am a republican but we could well have a situation in which the Monarch could be dragged into the argument in a crisis in which fierce passions were aroused all over the country, with people saying, "It is wrong for the Government to try to force this Measure through." No doubt the Government would want to create peers because they had temporarily lost their majority in another place.
The question would inevitably arise whether it was right for the Monarch in those circumstances, following an Act of this nature, to agree to what the Government proposed. We should have the most peculiar situation in our constitutional history, with Parliament stating clearly that it wanted something to happen, the Government stating that they wanted more peers to ensure that it did not happen, and the Monarch having to choose between the two. It would create considerable constitutional difficulties.
The Monarch has to accept the advice she is offered by the Government and the Prime Minister, who has a majority in the House of Commons. Let us suppose a situation where the Government are, however, giving advice to the Monarch in defiance of the recommendations of the House of Commons. This is an argument for all of us being clear on this matter. Do not let us pass muddled legislation on the constitutional future of the country.
This is where the Government have got into difficulties, again not from any lack of warning. Many of us have believed from the beginning that this is an extremely important Measure and that it must be clarified. Many of us opposed the recommendations of the White Paper. But, whatever goes through, I hope it will be clear. I hope that we shall all know clearly what the position is at the end and what are the obligations. I have

described what can arise from the confusion of the Preamble as between the Monarch and this House.
Other difficulties could arise over accusations of bad faith between the parties. The "usual channels" get blocked every now and then and the world goes on. But here we are creating a situation where there are bound to be questions whether the intention of Parliament has been carried out—and no one will know because Parliament's intention has not been stated clearly.
The Preamble hints at what Parliament's intentions may be and hopes that that will be satisfactory. It is not satisfactory to me. It is not satisfactory that we should have a declaration which is not clear, which could lead to the utmost confusion, which cannot be sorted out by lawyers, for which no genuine precedent can be found and which also makes the whole situation even more confused than we thought it was a day or two ago.
That is why I very modestly put the suggestion forward last night that the Government should ask leave to report Progress and sit again. We should have time to consider this matter. I have been urging all through these debates that the Government should take away this Measure. I do not ask them to say that they will drop it immediately, I know that they are committed in many respects. Let them take it away for a week or two, and have some further conversations. Let them deal with these points about the Preamble and the other constitutional points, which are serious matters. They are bound to be pressed on all the other matters which refer to the Preamble for the rest of the passage of the Bill.
The Attorney-General has darkened counsel, not intentionally I am sure, by what he has said. In effect he said that the real point is that this is part of the package. I do not want to cause any embarrassment to the right hon. Member for Barnet; he is one of the most splendid Members of this House, who contributes to our discussions in the most amiable possible manner. He does not like us to mention such an indelicate word as "bargain". I do not know what he has been doing all his political life; I never knew that he was quite such an innocent. Even though the


bargain broke down when the Rhodesian Order went to another place, I have not yet heard, either from the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else, how the items in the proposal before us differ from the original proposals.
The bargain that was almost reached, if I can use such a horrific word, before the incident of the Rhodesian Order is now incorporated, as best the Government can, in the Bill, which is why the Front Bench opposite, most honourably according to their obligations, are standing by the Bill, despite the ever-mounting rage of their back-benchers. They are standing up, shoulder to shoulder. I cannot see many shoulders present this morning; no doubt they will be coming along later in the day.
The right hon. Gentleman stands by his agreement. He has said that he is in favour of the Bill, but even he must agree that we should try to make it clear. His intervention on this Preamble has strengthened the position of those who wish to clarify it. The Government must recognise that they are confronted with a position when they might even lose the support of the Opposition Front Bench. Where would they be then? That would be a very serious situation.
I hope that the Government will take my advice, which I have been urging upon them for a long time. No doubt they say it is hopeless advice, that they need not worry about it, that they need take no notice of such people because our objections do not count. Perhaps they think they can let the whole thing go ahead. As Disreali used to say, a majority is the best repartee. Certainly it is the best repartee that we have had from the Treasury Bench this morning, with the greatest respect to the Attorney-General. The Government have a majority now, and they have to think very fast when they see it slipping. That is what is happening in this Committee. Before this Bill is through the Government will be defeated on it, and it is much wiser for them to consider the case now.
This must be explored in greater detail. We have not had much time to examine all these precedents offered by the Attorney-General. We are grateful to him for telling us what they are, and I am sure that examination of them will

continue. The wisest course for the Government, either at the end of our proceedings this morning or at the beginning of proceedings this afternoon—and I should be very happy for them to take over the Motion that I propose—would be to move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. Then there could be a decent, lengthy interval in which they could look afresh at the whole matter of patching up their bargain with the Opposition Front Bench, for them to get the support of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, so that the question of the Preamble might be fixed up through the usual channels.
It would be interesting to see what the Government's constitutional conclusion is. Once again I offer my assistance to the Government. I hope to get them out of a scrape into which they should never have got themselves. I have seen them in worse scrapes and get out, so they should not despair. I say to them quite seriously that many of us are not prepared to see a Bill of such major constitutional importance go through in such a muddled fashion.
The British Constitution is an interesting contraption. I hope that is not too Burkeian a sentiment for a Thomas Paine-ite like myself to utter. There are many parts of it which die of apathy or inanition, and at the proper moment such parts have to be lopped off. That is what I should like to do with the House of Lords. I thought we had reached that moment. I say the same thing about some of the aspects of Privilege of this House. Some of those should be lopped off, with great advantage to the health of the rest of the organs.
Just as some parts of our Constitution have grown up to protect property rights and reactionary privileges—and I wish to see them removed at the psychological moment—so other parts have grown up to protect the rights of back bench Members of this House and the rights of individual citizens. One aspect of constitutional procedure of this House which has grown up for that purpose is the precision of Measures, Preambles and constitutional devices presented to the House.
It is only because we can make those sufficiently precise—we spend most of our time in Committee trying to slice away the confusion, trying to make them more


and more precise—that we can protect ourselves and the interests of the citizens. If we are now to admit that Preambles are to be used for wide declaratory purposes which are not defined, then we shall have betrayed our duties as Members in protecting the best parts of our Constitution. Look at the history of it; to all the devices of this nature and the way in which things are presented to the House ensure that we have clear debate and decisions. I defy any member of the Government to say that if we pass this Preamble in this form we should have clear decisions on a major matter.

10.45 a.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Committee has an affection and admiration for the right hon. and learned Attorney-General. I have a special regard for him in respect of an office which he holds with rather more secure tenure than his office of Attorney-General. Most of us were very sorry for him this morning; he was obviously being put in, and I admit that there are precedents for this with Attorney-Generals before him, to cover up the mess into which his colleagues have got legislation.
I thought that he involved himself in the same difficulty as traditionally involve lay magistrates—they are all right until they start giving their reasons. As I listened to him such faith as I had in the consistency or point of this Preamble steadily evaporated. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not direct his charmingly presented argument to the points which were raised last night, and which will be raised this morning.
No one disputes that there have frequently been Preambles to major Constitutional Measures. How relevant they are as precedents is obviously something that no hon. Member would like to pronounce upon without fairly prolonged examination of those quoted. That is obviously not possible this morning. It appears that many of the precedents related to either future legislative intentions, such as the Parliament Act 1911, or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) pointed out, to an attempt to state an already existing position, such as the Statute of Westminster. We have not had time to consult the precedents, and maybe there are

those which are more apposite to this Preamble than those I have quoted. I leave this as an open question.
What the Committee was concerned about last month, and what I am now even more concerned about, is much more directly germane to this matter, namely, what is the purpose, and still more what is the legal effect, of this Preamble? I would like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to crystalise, to use his own verb, the matter by answering this question: would a Government which wished to act plainly contrary to the intensions of this Preamble be free in law, to do so without previously introducing amending legislation? In other words, do the words of this Preamble have any legal effect whatever?
There is the point made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) of an attempted creation of peers contrary to subsection (a) of the Preamble. This may well put the Sovereign in a position of great difficulty. It is well known that their late Majesties King Edward VII and George V were very unhappy and hesitant about accepting Mr. Asquith's advice to offer in certain circumstances, to create those peers.
If they had been able to say, "But, Prime Minister, I am debarred by Statute from doing so and my advisers say this has some legal effect", the position would obviously have been worse from everyone's point of view. What is unpardonable in this situation is the uncertainty. I hope the Attorney-General will answer the question; could a future government, or this Government, act plainly contrary to what is here set out without introducing amending legislation? If they cannot so act, then this is an odd and inconvenient method of inhibiting them. It would have been much better to put the inhibition in a Clause by itself in the Bill.
If, as I suspect is the truth, they can so act, then this is quite frankly eyewash, and dangerous eyewash at that. I am strengthened in this conviction by the Attorney-General's other arguments. He quoted Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, I thought, to suggest that the purpose of the Preamble might be to assist in the interpretation, in cases of doubt, of the actual provisions of the Measure. That can hardly be the effect


of the latter part of this Preamble, because it is common ground that it deals with matters not dealt with in the Measure but with quite separate matters. It could hardly be of the slightest assistance to a court in interpreting quite distinct matters. We must have interpretations of the effect of the phrases used by Ministers to describe its effect. The Attorney-General said that these matters were brought within the ambit of the Bill. I feel that his advisers will shiver when they read that. What on earth does it mean? Does it mean it is legislated into the law of the land? If it does not, what does it mean?
We must have an interpretation of the famous expression "statutory recognition". The Prime Minister, the head of the Administration, used it. The Leader of the House used it yesterday, showing that blind loyalty to his leader which is one of his most agreeable characteristics. I wonder whether the originator of that phrase, the Prime Minister, used it on the advice of the Attorney-General, or whether he Coined it himself. What does it mean? I can understand a statutory provision—it does something; it provides a change in our law which, if broken, would involve one in trouble—but what does "statutory recognition" mean? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to say, "Nothing at all"? If that is his view, as a matter of law, he must say so, however embarrassing his subsequent interview with the Prime Minister may be.
We cannot, on a major constitutional measure of this kind, have expressions used in commending a Bill which are either meaningless or of so rarified a meaning that no Member of the Administration regards himself as able to interpret them. What on earth does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean by "crystallising the constitutional conventions ", as though they were a plum? It calls to my mind the notice pinned up at an American University: "It is a tradition of this college that undergraduates do not walk on the grass in the quad. This tradition will come into effect on Monday next." One cannot crystalise a convention by putting it in a Preamble. Either it is a convention which has grown up in the ways that the conventions of our constitution have—I recognise as well as anyone how im-

mensely important they are—or it is not. One does not crystallise it, coat it with sugar, coat it with legal phraseology and give it some effect.
I deprecate the principal legal adviser of the House as well as the Government using expressions which are so difficult strictly to construe. Of course, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to interpret this again, I am sure that we shall hear him with the greatest interest.
We began to get a little nearer the reality when the right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about "a statement of intent" and then of "solemn commitment by the Government". This is a curious medium to use for this purpose. A Government can state their policy in a White Paper and—if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not mind my mentioning it—also in an election manifesto. They can distinguish, or at any rate the Prime Minister can, between a promise and a solemn pledge. Perhaps, in a spare moment, the Attorney-General would give us an interpretation of the distinction between the two, but I shall not pursue that aggreable topic, Mr. Gurden, for fear of incurring your displeasure.
Is it suggested that this Preamble is simply stating the Government's view? Why is that necessary? A White Paper is the proper method and a resolution of the House is much more valuable, because we can all state our views on it. If it is suggested, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman came near to suggesting, that this would amount to a solemn commitment by Parliament as a whole, that is highly objectionable, because he will know, if he knows nothing else about the Bill, that it is a highly controversial Measure, and that to purport to commit Parliament in this roundabout manner by sticking some words into the Preamble of a Bill would be to degrade the whole statutory process. It is the Attorney-General's duty, of all hon. Member's, to prevent that.
So we come to the nub of this. I suggest that this has no legal effect, and I await the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer. I suggest that it is merely a kind of manifesto and that, if so, it is a manifesto put in the wrong place.

11.0 a.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: When we are discussing what matters are in order, we might consider that there is some doubt about whether this debate is actually in order. Standing Order No. 45 says that all considerations of the Preamble should take place after the discussion of all parts of the Bill—

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The discussion this morning is in order. I gave a Ruling yesterday that we are discussing Amendment No. 139 dealing with the Preamble, along with Amendment No. 140.

Mr. Blackburn: Whether it is in order or not, I am not objecting to the debate taking place, because it is useful. But if we had discussed the Preamble at the end of the Bill, it would have been reasonable to expect someone to put down an Amendment to delete the second part of the Preamble if there had been nothing in the Bill to cover it. The Government have made a mistake in introducing this long Preamble, which obviously has no legal effect and is only declaratory. Either that second part should be deleted, or it is not beyond the wit of Government advisers to provide new Clauses to cover the two points contained in the second part and get around the difficulty of the Royal Prerogative. That should be deleted and those two points dealt with. At present the second part has no statutory effect. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts.

[Mr. HAROLD GURDEN in the Chair]

Mr. Powell: This is an extremely important debate at this unusual hour of day. It bears upon one of the great issues of our time, which is the future of the rule of law. One of the most dangerous trends in recent years has been the breakdown of the rule of law by the continual obscuring of a distinction which should be absolute and upon the absoluteness of which the freedom of the individual depends, between that which is law and is, therefore, binding and that which is opinion—even be it the opinion of a Government or some other exalted body—which is not binding.
The whole effect of this Preamble and, I regret to say, the speech of the

Attorney-General has been to continue to blur that vitally important distinction. It is true that he gave up silently the claim made by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by the Leader of the House that this Preamble gave "statutory recognition" to what it contained. He did not use that term. If by omission, he has at any rate confirmed what we really all knew but would have liked him to confirm explicity—that nothing in the Preamble is any part of the Statute. But I am afraid that having done that, at any rate by omission, he produced a stream of expressions, each of which, to use an old legal tag, is "so oily and saponaceous that it is impossible for the mind to get a grip upon it."
The Attorney-General referred to bringing certain matters "within the ambit of the Bill ". A Bill, which is, of course, a petition, in due course becomes a Statute, part of the law. Does he or does he not mean that what is in the Preamble is brought within the ambit of what, in due course, will become the law of the land? If he does not mean that, the expression about bringing it "within the ambit of the Bill" means nothing.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the "declaratory effect" of the words in the Preamble. We are familiar with the significance of declaratory Statutes and provisions in a Statute. They are part of the law. True, they do not purport to make new law, but only to clarify or to declare what the law is, but they are law and they are nonetheless law for being declaratory. It is a regrettable ambiguity that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should use that term in a context where misunderstanding is so dangerous.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has already dealt with the absurdities of another attempt by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the phrase "crystallise as constitutional conventions", but I thought that all kinds of ominous rumbles were audible when he went on to describe the Preamble as "a statement of intent". I should have thought that that was one phrase which the Government would have been anxious to avoid rather than use. In another ill-omened Freudian slip, he referred


to it as "containing the intentions of the framers of the Bill". Some of us on both sides feel that there has been all too much "framing" in the preparation of this Statute.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps summed up this part of his contention by saying that this was a "solemn commitment" of the Government. I need not risk your displeasure, Mr. Gurden, for the instances will occur to the minds of hon. Members without any prompting by me of solemn commitments on the part of the Government which have proved not to be binding upon them, let alone to have any force of law. Therefore, I do not feel that in considering the text of this Bill in the light of the Preamble we can regard ourselves as helped by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assertion that these words contain a "solemn commitment" by the Government. If the Government want to make a solemn commitment, let them express that commitment in terms of law, so that if they or any subsequent Government wish to depart from it, they must bring to the House a new proposal to change the law. That is the way, when legislating, to give effect to a solemn commitment.
But perhaps the most startling venture of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was his claim that a Preamble to a Government Bill is not only solemnly binding upon the Government but also binding upon the Opposition and, he said, upon all parties and is a sign of the willingness of all parties to fulfil what is adumbrated in the Preamble. One knows the futility of any attempt by a House of Commons to bind its own future acts, let alone the acts of future Parliaments, but it is a sort of nonsense which should not come from the chief legal adviser of the Government that a Preamble enshrines a statement of the willingness of all parties to fulfil what it says.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) put to the test the objections which so many of us feel to the procedure by Preamble in this Bill, by saying, "Why did not the Government write the White Paper into the Preamble?" Then, he said, at any rate we should know a little better where we stand. We should have some key to the meaning of the Bill and the way in which it is to be applied. But when we attempt to do that, we immediately discover why,

if they ever thought of such a thing, the Government immediately shied away from it, for we discover that the White Paper itself is wholly unspecific.
One of the key questions is the party composition—we are all agreed upon this—of the new nominated Chamber which is to be established. What does the Preamble say about that? In paragraph (a), to which reference has been made, it states that there shall be preserved "a proper balance" between the various elements in the other Chamber. "A proper balance"—something which is totally subjective and unspecific.
When we go to the White Paper to find out what is meant by "a proper balance", we do not find a specific answer. We are given a specimen. The Government, in the White Paper, say: "It could be done this way. Of course, it might not work. If it did not, we might do it some other way. There is a Royal Commission coming along and it may be that we shall have further thoughts after that time."
What sort of solemn commitment is this, which is to be the key to the understanding of the Bill, the Clauses of which we are to work through and turn into law, when we discover that even in the White Paper behind it there is nothing specific?
It is no use the Government saying "We could not do this, because this is a matter for the Royal Prerogative." In this respect I am at the opposite end of the pole to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. I am tender of the Royal Prerogative. I believe that, even in the modern Constitution, the Royal Prerogative has a useful function which can be exercised in the interests of the subject. However that may be, the notion that we cannot legislate about matters which at the moment of legislation are within the Royal Prerogative is an absurdity. A great part of historical legislation has been an erosion of the Royal Prerogative and the conversion of what were prerogative acts into acts limited, defined, and safeguarded by statute. Indeed, the Bill itself is a limitation of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. That is why, in the early stages of the Bill, the Government informed the House that Her Majesty had graciously placed her Prerogative at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes


of the Bill. So it is no excuse for the Government to say, "The number of peers created is a matter for the Royal Prerogative. Therefore, we cannot define it. Mind you, we can give a solemn commitment about it, a solemn commitment which we go on to say will be binding on all parties in future, but we could not possibly turn it into terms of law."
These contentions are a tissue of absurdities. The difficulty of definition and of getting at the reality of what we are debating all the time in going through the Clauses of the Bill is at the heart of the embarrassment of the Committee and of the mounting indignation which the Committee feels at the task that it is being asked to perform.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman purported to give precedents justifying this kind of use of a Preamble to a statute. I believe that, on being examined, they will be found not to sustain the attempt which is here being made.
A number of cases were given—one was the Royal Titles Act, 1953, and another was the Statute of Westminster, 1931—where the matters referred to in the Preamble were matters which could not be brought within the law of the United Kingdom. What we asserted in the Preambles to those two constitutional statutes of 1931 and 1953 were matters which, apart from what we were doing in our own Bill, were wholly outside the powers of the United Kingdom Parliament and depended upon the common action, but the independent action, of other legislatures. The Preambles to those Acts were, therefore, declarations of a background to the legislation which we were enacting, but a background which could not be made part of United Kingdom law.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave other examples—the Government of India Act, 1935, and the Parliament Act, 1911—where, in a programmatic sort of way, the Preamble to the Bill said, "This is what we are doing for the time being; but later on we will do something more."
This is quite different from the use of the Preamble for this Bill. In this Preamble the Government are saying, "Pass the Bill because we will use it in the way stated in the Preamble, or,

rather, in the way vaguely and indirectly hinted at in the Preamble."
This is quite different from the Parliament Act, 1911, which said, "It is urgent to reform the House of Lords in this, that or the other way, but meanwhile we will do this, because this is justified on its own merits."
This is different from the India Act, 1935, where the Government said, "We look forward to a future constitutional development of India in the course of which it will be necessary to come back to the House perhaps several times for new India Acts. Meanwhile, this is the India Act justified on the terms of its provisions which we are asking the House to pass."
The Government have failed and by their failure they have thrown into sharp relief the embarrassment of the Committee, faced with the Bill, to provide any justification, by way of precedent or reason, for this use of the Preamble. That alone would justify the Committee in rejecting not only as a whole but provision by provision a Bill of which the alleged justification is to be found in what the Committee is not allowed to examine in detail or to frame in the form of law. That is not an operation on which the Committee ought to be engaged.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: The Committee will know that I have no legal training. Having listened to my right hon. and learned Friend this morning, I do not feel terribly deprived. The Attorney-General is a very amiable man and we are on the best of terms. He will remember that I was prepared to canvass for him to be the Speaker of the House in 1964. Having listened to him this morning, I wish that he had accepted the invitation.
My right hon. and learned Friend's statement this morning, compared with the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House last evening, is a considerable contradiction. The Preamble, the subject of the debate this morning, does not deal with some of the subjects with which the Leader of the House said that it dealt last night. There are some things which he said were dealt with by the Preamble in column 339 which could and should be dealt with in the body of the Bill.
The Attorney-General this morning made a quite remarkable statement. It would have been to the advantage of the Committee if we could have adjourned immediately to give further consideration to what was a long, complicated and very important constitutional statement. It would have been better for the Committee and for the country if we had adjourned immediately and if the Government had decided to withdraw the Bill altogether. The more we get into these arguments the more absurd the situation becomes.
The Attorney-General talked about a statement of intent. This has been referred to several times in the brilliant speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and others. We all know what happens to statements of intent. There have been other statements of intent since 1964, which are now scraps of paper, and nothing more, and I suspect that is what will become of this Preamble.
The Attorney-General went on to say that it was only of declaratory effect, but that it was a solemn commitment. It cannot be one and the other at the same time. It is either one or the other, but not both.
An even more remarkable statement was that referred to by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South West (Mr. Powell) that the Preamble embodies a party pact. We have never been told what the pact was. The Government have repeatedly refused to disclose it, as has the Opposition Front Bench. But, even if there were a pact, it is remarkable that my right hon. and learned Friend should say that this pact is binding on all future Governments, be they Liberal, Scottish National, Welsh National, Tory, Labour, Communist, or any other. To say that all Governments are bound by this Statute is absolute nonsense. This shows what an absurd situation we can get into when the two Front Benches get together in solemn conclave and come to some kind of a deal.
I suspect that what my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said is right, that the time will come, sooner or later, when the Government will be defeated on this Bill. If they seek to introduce a guillotine Motion they might well be defeated, because back benchers on both sides will reject that kind of ploy. It

is quite clear that the Committee is in such an absurd situation that both sides will come together in the event of the Government trying to introduce such a Motion.
I hope that the Government will withdraw the Bill and introduce a much simpler one merely to destroy entirely the powers of the other place, nothing more. They can do what they like along there. They can sit as long as they like, or as little as they like, as long as they have no powers. It is a retired politician's home, and we should leave it at that. Let us not get into this kind of muddle. Let us get out of it as quickly as we can.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I am sure that the duty of the Committee is being very well discharged by back benchers. The duty of the Committee is to look at legislation put before it and to consider what its long-term impact is likely to be. This legislation seems to have been ill considered, indeed hardly considered, at all by the Front Benches. What we have before us is something which has not been thought out in detail, and it is only when this legislation is examined by the X-ray of many back benchers that some of the problems which must emerge are made clear to the general public.
The trouble is that this legislation has been motivated by timid nobles in another place who do not know how to conduct their own business. This is the root of the matter, and the two Front Benches have fallen into this trap. Unable to conduct their lordships' place, or feeling that they are unable to do so, although it has been done pretty well in the past, they feel that their nerves are being strained. Therefore, they have put before the Committee something which could endanger the whole of the Constitution.
This is not just a question of their lordships' place. It is a question of the balance of the Constitution and how the Constitution should work and appeal and appear to our fellow citizens throughout the land. As a result, we are getting into the kind of condition which is becoming clearer hour by hour as the Bill is investigated by back benchers.
We had from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) a speech of great force and power directed to his Front Bench, and I should like to say


a word or two to my Front Bench. I think that this band of brothers on the two Front Benches, this cosa nostra, should begin to get dissolved. The other day, brooding above the ruins of Cuzco, I thought of the times of bands of brothers—sometimes one thinks these men are like Atahualpa and Huascar determined to destroy the State, not with any ill intention, not because they are wicked men, not because they have bad schemes for running the country, like the South American junta, but because they have not applied their minds to the problems which they are putting before us today. This is why it is time for the cosa nostra to disband, and for them to look at the constitutional problems they are imposing on the Committee and on the country.
Two things flow from the question of the Preamble. First, the only way in which the altered place can work is by an exact and total exercise of patronage. The men who have to be sent there have to be totally safe men. If we get the sort of condition which existed in 1711, one of the reasons why the rebellion of 1715 may have been carried out by dissident Scottish lords who did not get on to the payroll, a condition where, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said, there is a situation—and it does not need much imagination to consider it—such as there was at the time of the Cuba crisis, at a time when perhaps the bonds of patronage are strained, especially if they are not to be paid it will be difficult to keep these people in check.
At four guineas a week patronage is not very effective, and there may be moments when people will say that the interests of the nation are more important than their relations with the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. There may come this awful moment when the Chief Whips will find that conscience has raised its hideous head in the other place. All this may be altered. Once the Bill is through there may be great lavish free motor cars. There may be nothing more than four guineas a week, but there may be all the side benefits, and all the fringe stuff may come in. We never know, because of the prerogative.
Far more important, however, the moment will arise when we have a Government who, for some reason, are

extremely unpopular, and whose fate could depend on the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is a republican, and this is the way to get a republic. This is the way to make a conflict and drag the monarchy into supporting an unpopular Government. I do not think that this has been considered by the timid peers upstairs. They have not considered that this could happen. The Monarchy could be dragged in and undermined by the creation of further peers to support an ailing Government or a Government who are doing something against the national welfare. This is why this is a serious matter. I made jokes about it. The Conservative Party have clearly not considered this in sufficient depth, and they are supporting a Bill which in time could lead to an attack on the Monarchy and could drag the Monarchy into the worst form of political struggle, not with the House of Commons but with the people themselves.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Paget: I would like to commence by paying a tribute to my unlearned leader who opened for the back benches on this occasion with what—and I am not seeking to flatter or to exaggerate—was the best legal speech which I have heard since Hartley Shawcross. I may have had my differences with Hartley Shawcross as a politician, but, as an exponent of legal argument in this House, he certainly had no equal during the quarter of a century in which I have been here. As a masterly exposition of the law and of the Constitution I was immensely impressed by the speech this morning of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). Since then, many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) have repeated the question: what is the legal effect of this Preamble?
The answer to this is that a Preamble can have no effect unless it is followed by an amble. The Preamble expresses an intent. The amble, which is the Statute which follows it, gives legal effect to that intention. If no legal enactment follows the Preamble, the Preamble is simply an abortion, a sort of leg one cannot walk on.
The Preamble has no legal authority. It seeks to control the Prerogative, but


the Prerogative cannot be controlled whilst it is left as a Prerogative. One cannot go to the courts to ask for an injunction to restrain the Prime Minister from behaving contrary to the Preamble because the simple answer is, "It is not me behaving, it is the Queen, and the Queen cannot be controlled by her courts." That is the whole point of the Prerogative. So there is here something which is of no legal authority, something which seeks to control the Prerogative whilst leaving it as a Prerogative, and something which seeks to define the manner in which that Prerogative should be used yet does not do so because it leaves the whole thing completely vague.
Amongst the excuses put up for this peculiar piece of legislation is that it is to deal with a matter on which we cannot legislate. With the greatest respect, Mr. Gurden, that is simply untrue. Of course we can legislate. If the intention is that there should be another place, consisting of certain peers to be nominated by the Prime Minister, certain peers to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, certain peers to be nominated by a Committee to sit on the cross-bench and certain peers to be nominated by nobody to make speeches, legal effect can be given to that intention. It can be laid down that the Prime Minister shall appoint a certain number of peers to another House. In the old India Army there were Queen's officers and Viceroy's officers. In the new House of Peers there can be Prime Minister's peers, Leader of the Opposition's peers, Committee's peers and Queen's peers. It is perfectly possible legally. If this were done, the difficulty would be that there would be created a body of real authority, a body with a real legal foundation, a foundation with which it would be exceedingly difficult to interfere, particularly if the peers were unpaid.
If people are appointed, as the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) said, by patronage, safe men, the great problem is, who are safe men and how long will they stay safe? It is awfully difficult to find them. I always remember the passage in Trollope's Phineas Finn, when the Chief Whip was discussing the problems rendered by Mr. Finn's decision to vote against the Government on the Irish Measure. The Chief Whip ruminated when this was reported to him and he said—

I am quoting from memory, not exactly—"It is a pity, I have seen a lot of young men go wrong in my time here, with some it has been drink, with some it has been women, but principles, that is the worst of the lot."

Mr. Hugh Fraser: And Irish customs.

Mr. Paget: And Irish customs—I am quoting from memory. This awful head of principle may arise in such a House of Peers. If we put into the Bill something that means something, the Prime Minister to appoint so many, the Opposition to appoint so many, a Statutory Committee to appoint the cross-benchers, those will be people of their choice, people who might or might not have principles. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale referred to them as statutory eunuchs, or political castrati.

Mr. Michael Foot: Might not those peers who stood by the obligations which they were supposed to carry out be referred to as Preamble peers?

Mr. Paget: At this point the Government ought to reconsider this Measure. If they try to put a guillotine on it they will be beaten. They have not got the kind of commitment, even from the Opposition Front Bench, that will support them on that. They are running into various other matters on which they may be beaten. For heaven's sake, take this away and have more thoughts on it before any more time is wasted!

Mr. Deedes: I wish to address only one question to the Attorney-General before he is good enough to reply. It is quite a simple question by contrast with some that have been put to him, and it is a question which has puzzled me more and more as the debate has continued. Quite simply, what are the Government's motives for entering the Preamble of the Bill in this way?
Those of us who have knowledge of how Bills are put together in Government Departments or elsewhere know that the form is not arrived at by a happy accident but by discussions. If the Bill is to take an unusual form the discussions are often protracted and the Attorney-General is always consulted. He was good enough to explain to us this morning that on previous occasions in Bills of major constitutional importance there have been


Preambles of this kind, but I rather agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that the precedents offered by the Attorney-General were not perhaps as convincing as he hoped they might be. Had we had a little more time to examine them, we might have found even more flaws than have already been suggested. This may constitute a precedent, but are the Government required to do this in this Measure? Is such a Preamble required in every Bill of a constitutional character?
The Attorney-General gave a list of Measures which had contained Preambles along these lines. Did he omit Bills of this character which had not contained such Preambles? Are the Government aware that if, for any reason, they are compelled to proceed with a Preamble of this kind they will have trouble with the Bill, since it has been made clear by hon. Members on both sides that the House of Commons is not prepared to continue discussing a Measure the Preamble to which contains the implications to which reference has been made? Is there another way in which the Government can fulfil what they want to achieve without this Preamble? If there is, was it considered and will it be considered now?
The Attorney-General laid great stress on paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Preamble, and I gathered from his remarks that these paragraphs are regarded as enshrining the main matter of the White Paper. Is he aware, however, that they are not exclusive but somewhat selective in that sense? One must, therefore, assume that the Preamble has been drafted in an arbitrary way, that it could have been drafted in a different way and that perhaps it need not have been in the Bill at all.
Bearing this in mind, what were the Government's motives in having this type of Preamble and what advantage lies in it for them? I ask this because I suspect that such advantage as may be in it for them carries absolutely no advantage for the Committee, and that is why the Government should be challenged on this matter.

Mr. Howie: I come to the aid of the Government—not with vigour and extremely impartially, because I am not

firm in my commitment to the Bill—because, like many hon. Members, I am anxious for the Committee to begin discussing in greater detail the Measure and the Amendments tabled to it.
We are in difficulty this morning because of the selection made yesterday of the subjects for debate. I do not criticise the selection; indeed, it is outwith my power to do so. However, we would normally have been discussing the Preamble at the end of our deliberations on the Bill and not in the middle of them. We find ourselves in this position because of the selection of a particular Amendment. We seem to have reached the end before getting past the middle.
The Attorney-General did not challenge the fact that the Preamble cannot be binding since it is nothing but a declaration of intent. Such a declaration made by the present Government, even with the tepid support of the Opposition Front Bench, cannot be binding on any other Front Bench in future. Who knows, in five or 10 years' time my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) may find himself sitting on the Government Front Bench, no doubt alongside his hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), both as Chancellors of the Exchequer; and after the speech made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne would anyone suggest that he would be bound by a declaration of intent written into this Preamble?
11.45 a.m.
Not only is that idea absurd, it is made more absurd by the comments earlier of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who is an able and respected right hon. Gentleman and of whom I am nearly a constituent—I am happy to say not quite. While I do not wish to be unkind to him, he seemed to be throwing cold water on the idea that there had been a bargain between the two Front Benches. I would be overstating my case to say that he was trying to wriggle out of the bargain. I do not mean it in such an unkind way. He suggested, however, that a bargain had been suggested but that it did not actually exist. He did not say in what way the present proposals differed from any bargain that might have been made, and he should make it clear, for the benefit of back benchers, precisely what


the present position is, because we are anxious about the likely future of the declaration of intent.
I said that I would try to aid the Government. There are several ways out of this dilemma. First—this course has been advocated by some hon. Members—the Government could abandon the Bill, rethink their position and introduce a simpler proposal. That would be an excellent idea. If they do not feel inclined to do that, there is another way. There is no doubt that the House of Commons is empowered to legislate on the composition of the other House. The Prerogative has been given to us by Her Majesty and we may use it by defining, within the Bill, the nature of the House of Lords or whatever it may be called in future.
There are certain ways of doing this. It could be done by a direct amendment of the Bill; and by good fortune Amendment No. 136 appears on the Notice Paper in my name. Mine is the only name supporting it, but if, on reflection, other hon. Members care to join me, I shall be delighted, and they need not accept my definition of the composition of the second Chamber. I hope that that Amendment will be selected for debate.
On the other hand, it would be possible for the Government to insert the complete White Paper, perhaps amended, in the Bill as a Schedule. Such an Amendment appears on the Notice Paper. I have not studied it, because of its length, to see how closely it follows the White Paper.

Mr. Birch: It is exactly the White Paper.

Mr. Howie: I thought that it was, and I am delighted to have that confirmation.
A precedent for including an entire White Paper in a Bill exists in the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966. At that time we were making a break with tradition. Instead of the White Paper being a declaration of intent, it would, as it did in 1966, become a part of the law.
To assist our proceedings, the Government should make a statement to the effect that at a suitable stage in the Bill they will accept or propose an Amendment which defines the number and nature of the House of Lords or, alternatively, that they will put their proposals in the Bill as a new Schedule.

Mr. Onslow: It would be much more helpful to the Committee if a statement to this effect were made before the debate concluded. We want to know from the Government what their intentions now are.

Mr. Howie: I am happy to say "during the debate". I do not think that we can ask the Government at this stage to debate the details of a hypothetical Schedule which we shall reach in the middle of July or December—I hope. But I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
It is for the Government at this stage to tell us that they will put into the Bill detailed proposals about the composition of the Lords. They can then let us get on with the detailed consideration of the Bill after today.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I believe that Ash Wednesday morning, 1969, will be recorded as the day on which backbenchers rose up and forced a Government to withdraw a Bill even though they had already fixed it with the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that before we end this morning's sitting we shall have a statement to that effect from the Government. In the meantime, we have to continue our weary way through this Committee.
I came here this morning to hear the Attorney-General's statement; I thought it a very serious development, because, while the Preamble appeared to be part of the Bill and to have some statutory effect, though most hon. Members did not like it, it appeared to have some restrictive effect on the powers of the Prime Minister's patronage. Since we have now been told that it is purely declaratory and has no legal effect, we must now read the Bill simply in terms of its Clauses without the Preamble. They are revolutionary and extremely dangerous taken by themselves.
When we discussed this matter yesterday we considered new Clause 19. What has been said this morning will give particular relevance to that Clause, which was drafted in the apprehension that the power of patronage that the Bill would confer on the Prime Minister would be intolerable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) said on Second Reading that the Prime Minister's power of patronage was causing anxiety on both


sides of the House, and hoped that a formula might be found whereby the Prime Minister would act only with "advice". It may well be that the suggestion made in new Clause 19, that a Committee of the Privy Council should advise the Sovereign on the selection of Members of the other place, is not the cleverest of all possible suggestions. I am not a constitutional expert, and I do not recommend that the particular words in that new Clause should be adopted. But in dismissing it last night, the Leader of the House tended to suggest that it referred only to the selection of hereditary peers, the voteless wonders who are to be allowed to sit in on debates in the other place but not to have any power. But that was not the intention of the Clause when we set it down. The intention was that it should be read together with all the other Amendments that my hon. Friends and I have signed, in which we suggested how the Bill might be amended so as to make the other House a real place. We thought that the new Clause 19 might be one of the keys, so that the other place would not be a House nominated by the Prime Minister but would be nominated in some other way by people competent to advise the Sovereign on its composition.
But the Preamble has been swept away. The Government has chosen to disregard what we suggest in the new Clause, and are riding rough-shod over all that was said on Second Reading. This is a crisis in which the Government are confronting the back-benchers on both sides and trying to force a constitutional change of the greatest magnitude in the teeth of the most sincere anxiety of people who have studied this matter. What we see emerging is the premierissimo, who will be able to carry the Sovereign along behind him in his triumphal car. The premierissimo emerges from the Bill, as we now understand it, as the man of absolute power in the Constitution.
I hope that what has been done this morning, and what was said here yesterday and today, will prove that backbenchers in the House of Commons will have some influence over the Government. Since the Leader of the House and the Attorney-General have in effect killed the Preamble, they have made the Bill into an extremely dangerous Measure.

If they refuse to withdraw it, they must satisfy the very real anxieties of hon. Members on both sides and people outside the House who study our Constitution, and they must now put forward some amendment to the Bill whereby the Prime Minister would effectively be limited in his power of choice of members of the other House.

The Attorney-General: I have been asked a number of important questions about the Preamble. The basic question with which I must seek to grapple at the earliest opportunity was put to me by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) with his customary vigour and directness. He asked me what would be the legal effect of the second part of the Preamble, which is basically what we are discussing, in the sense of legally binding any Government to act in accordance with the Preamble. The answer is that it has no legal effect in that sense. If the Bill becomes an Act, the Preamble will be part of an Act of Parliament, and it will be open to judicial interpretation. But I agree that this will have no practical significance as far as the second part of the Preamble is concerned, since it does not mesh with anything in the Clauses. It is the case that if the Government of the day did not comply with the Preamble it would not be possible to take legal action in the courts to challenge their action. But that does not mean that the Preamble is without constitutional significance. It has constitutional significance. Its main significance is that if it is passed by Parliament, the action of the present and succeeding Governments, this having been the will of Parliament and the intention of Parliament, can be compared with the purposes of the proposals set out in the Preamble.
The real justification of the Preamble, therefore, is political. It provides information as to the way in which the prerogative will be exercised. The exercise of the prerogative will not be trammelled, but the principles on which it is to be exercised are indicated. The omission of the second part of the Preamble would not cause any legal or constitutional difficulty, but in the Government's view the declaration which the Preamble embodies, that the Government will abide by the principles indicated in


the Preamble, is of considerable political and constitutional importance.
12 noon.
The Preamble recognises—it is the fact—that much of our constitutional machinery is exercised in accordance with constitutional usage and conventions. New conventions need to be developed for new situations. The Preamble does not seek to set out all the conventions which will need to be developed in the working out of the scheme of reform, but it seeks to set out the conventions which should be followed in regard to the composition of the House of Lords.
I entirely agree that the White Paper contains some matters of importance which are not expressly referred to in the Preamble. One example is the important proposal in paragraph 31 of the White Paper about the committee which is to
review periodically the composition of the reformed House and report, either to the Prime Minister or to Parliament, on any deficiencies in the balance and range of the membership of the House.
It is not practicable to spell out such matters in the Bill. The answer to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) is that it is not practicable to set out the details of composition of the reformed House in what will inevitably be a changing political world, in the sense that there will be inevitable changes in party strength and representation in the upper House.

Mr. Birch: The White Paper says practically nothing about the reviewing committee. I suppose it will be a committee to be appointed to enable the Prime Minister to put in whoever he wants. There is to be no provision for any statutory way of appointing it, such as under the Lord Chief Justice, is there?

The Attorney-General: There are no statutory provisions in regard to it. It will be appointed by agreement between the parties in the House, because, after all, a great deal of Parliamentary life depends upon reasonable understandings between both sides of the House of Commons on the working of the Parliamentary machine. If every Member of the House of Commons set his mind to wreck

the operation of Parliament, he could do it. That is avoided by reasonable understanding and the coming together of minds on the working of conventions.
When we considered alternative methods of dealing with the problem that the scheme gives rise to, the conception of embodying the principles in regard to the composition in the Preamble and the bringing into the Preamble of the White Paper seemed to us to be the most effective means of committing Parliament to applying the principle that the composition of the reformed House should, in particular, embody the two most critical elements of maintaining a proper balance between the parties and representation of the various parts of the United Kingdom.
I therefore invite the House to reach the conclusion that, although the effect of the Preamble is declaratory and political, as I have said, it is not meaningless; it will be an important political test which subsequent Governments will be put to; and, accordingly, I invite the House to accept it.

Mr. Maudling: I can only regard the Attorney-General's reply as quite unsatisfactory. I make my position clear once again. I agree with this scheme for an agreed reform of the upper Chamber. I shall continue to support the proposals unless anyone can put forward arguments to convince me that they are wrong. However, my agreement with the substance of the proposals does not in any way bind me or my colleagues to agree with the particular drafting of the Measure. I think that the Government will agree with me there.
I think that the drafting of the Measure in this particular way has been shown to be profoundly unsatisfactory, because the Preamble clearly has no legal effect. It is, therefore, an anomaly within the Bill. The Attorney-General, in giving his final justification for the Preamble, said that the future action of the Government can be compared with the Preamble. It can be compared with the White Paper. It can be compared with Ministers' speeches in these debates. We do not need to have a Preamble to provide a basis of comparison.
Governments are bound either by law or by honour. This Preamble would


not bind them by law, nor would it add to the binding obligations of honour which they would have undertaken. It is quite clear from this discussion that the Preamble is meaningless. I do not think that it helps the passage of the Bill for the establishment of a reformed House of Lords to continue with the Preamble in this context.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 173, Noes 95.

Division No. 75.1
AYES
[12.5 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Anderson, Donald
Hannan, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Albert


Binns, John
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oakes, Gordon


Bishop, E. S.
Haseldine, Norman
O'Malley, Brian


Blackburn, F.
Hattersley, Roy
Oram, Albert E.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hazell, Bert
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Boston, Terence
Henig, Stanley
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Palmer, Arthur


Boyden, James
Hilton, W. S.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hooley, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howie, W.
Probert, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hoy, James
Rees, Merlyn


Cant, R. B.
Huckfield, Leslie
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy



Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Coe, Denis
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rose, Paul


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rowlands, E.


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Judd, Frank
Small, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Dell, Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dempsey, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Taverne, Dick


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thornton, Ernest


Driberg, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Tinn, James


Dunn, James A.
Loughlin, Charles
Urwin, T. W.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwyneth (Exeter)
McCann, John
Varley, Eric G.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacColl, James
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ellis, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ensor, David
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Weitzman, David


Evans, loan L. (Birm'ham, Yardley)
Mackie, John
Wellbeloved, James


Fernyhough, E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Whitaker, Ben


Finch, Harold
Maclennan, Robert
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Ford, Ben
McNamara, J. Kevin
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Forrester, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Freeson, Reginald
Manuel, Archie
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Winnick, David


Gardner, Tony
Mayhew, Christopher
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Millan, Bruce



Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gregory, Arnold
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. Neil McBride.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Biffen, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Awdry, Daniel
Biggs-Davison, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel


Astor, John
Baxter, William
Body, Richard




Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hooson, Emlyn
Percival, Ian


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Braine, Bernard
Hunt, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Francis


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cooke, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Corfield, F. V.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dance, James
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sheldon, Robert


Emery, Peter
Lee, John (Reading)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Eyre, Reginald
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Farr, John
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Tilney, John


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Mawby, Ray
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Dame Irene


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Goodhart, Philip
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Monro, Hector
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wright, Esmond


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
More, Jasper
Wylie, N. R.


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Nott, John
Younger, Hn. George


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Onslow, Cranley



Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hiley, Joseph
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke and


Hill, J. E. B.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Mr. Victor Goodhew.

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): I remind the committee that this rather wide debate arose on Amendment No. 140, moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald).

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 57, Noes 196.

Division No. 76.]
AYES
[12.15 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Goodhew, Victor
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Prior, J. M. L.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Biffen, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biggs-Davison, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ridsdale, Julian


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hiley, Joseph
Russell, Sir Ronald


Black, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sharples, Richard


Body, Richard
Jopling, Michael
Taylor, Edward M.(C'gow, Cathcart)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Kimball, Marcus
Tilney, John


Braine, Bernard
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Vickers, Dame Joan


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ward, Dame Irene


Cooke, Robert
Mawby, Ray
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Cordle, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wright, Esmond


Dance, James
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wylle, N. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hn. George


Emery, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus



Farr, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Neave, Airey
Mr. Cranley Onslow and


Glover, Sir Douglas
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.


Goodhart, Philip






NOES


Abse, Leo
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Dempsey, James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Buchan, Norman
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Anderson, Donald
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dobson, Ray


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Doig, Peter


Barnett, Joel
Cant, R. B.
Driberg, Tom


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Carmichael, Neil
Dunn, James A.


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Binns, John
Coe, Denis
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Bishop, E. S.
Coleman, Donald
Ellis, John


Blackburn, F.
Conlan, Bernard
English, Michael


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Ensor, David


Booth, Albert
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Boston, Terence
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Bottomley, RI. Hn. Arthur
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ferynhough, E.


Boyden, Jantes
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Finch, Harold


Brown, Bob (N c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dell, Edmund
Ford, Ben




Forrester, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Fowler, Gerry
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Probert, Arthur


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lee, John (Reading)
Rankin, John


Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rees, Merlyn


Calpern, Sir Myer
Lipton, Marcus
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Garrett, W. E.
Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Coronwy


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McCann, John
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
MacColl, James
Rose, Paul


Gregory, Arnold
Macdonald, A. H.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Grey, Charles (Durham)
McGuire, Michael
Rowlands, E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Ryan, John


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Sheldon, Robert


Hannan, William
Mackie, John
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Harper, Joseph
Mackintosh, John P.
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N 'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Silverman, Julius


Haseldine, Norman
McNamara, J. Kevin
Skeffington, Arthur


Hattersley, Roy
MacPherson, Malcolm
Small, William


Hazell, Bert
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Henig, Stanley
Manuel, Archie
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Steel, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Hilton, W. S.
Mayhew, Christopher
Taverne, Dick


Hooley, Frank
Mendelson, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Hooson, Emlyn
Mikardo, Ian
Thornton, Ernest


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Millan, Bruce
Tinn, James


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Urwin, T. W.


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Varley, Eric G.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Howie, W.
Moonman, Eric
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hoy, James
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkins, David (Contett)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, Albert
Wellbeloved, James


Hunter, Adam
Newens, Stan
Whitaker, Ben


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oakes, Gordon
White, Mrs. Eirene


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
O'Malley, Brian
Wilkins, W. A.


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stechford)
Oram, Albert E.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Orme, Stanley
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wilton, William (Coventry, S.)


Jones, Ht. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Paget, R. T.
Winnick, David


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Palmer, Arthur
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Parker, John (Dagenham)



Judd, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Pentland, Norman
Mr. J D. Concannon and


Lawson, George
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Mr. Neil McBride.


Leadbitter, Ted
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Amendment No. 163 proposed, in page 2, line 38, at end insert:
(5) Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of any Prince of the Blood Royal, being a Peer, to receive as heretofore a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords.—[Mr. Biggs-Davison.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 46, Noes 197.

Division No. 77.]
AYES
[12.24 p.m.


Allson, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Percival, Ian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Coodhart, Philip
Ridsdale, Julian


Biffen, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Tilney, John


Body, Richard
Hiley, Joseph
Vickers, Dame Joan


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ward, Dame Irene


Braine, Bernard
Kimball, Marcus
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Brewis, John
Kitson, Timothy
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Cooke, Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Wright, Esmond


Cordle, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wylie, N. R.


Costain, A. P.
Mawby, Ray
Younger, Hn. George


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.



Dance, James
Montgomery, Fergus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Emery, Peter
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke and


Farr, John
Neave, Airey
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Page, John (Harrow, W.)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Crimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Anderson, Donald
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hannan, William
Murray, Albert


Barnett, Joel
Harper, Joseph
Newens, Stan


Benn, Rt, Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oakes, Gordon


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Malley, Brian


Binns, John
Haseldine, Norman
Oram, Albert E.


Bishop, E. S.
Hattersley, Roy
Orme, Stanley


Blackburn, F.
Hazell, Bert
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Henig, Stanley
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Booth, Albert
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Paget, R. T.


Boston, Terence
Hilton, W. S.
Palmer, Arthur


Bottomley Ht. Hn. Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Boyden, James
Hooson, Emlyn
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Brown, Hugn D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Howie, W.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Buchan, Norman
Hoy, James
Probert, Arthur


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Huckfield, Leslie
Rankin, John


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rees, Merlyn


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Carmichael, Nell
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Coe, Denis
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rose, Paul


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rowlands, E.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)



Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ryan, John


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Judd, Frank
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dell, Edmund
Lawson, George
Silverman, Julius


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Sherrington, Arthur


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Small, William


Dobson, Ray
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Spriggs, Leslie


Doig, Peter
Lee, John (Reading)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Driberg, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dunn, James A.
Lipton, Marcus
Taverne, Dick


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
McBride, Neil
Thornton, Ernest


Edwarde, William (Merioneth)
MacColl, James
Tinn, James


Ellis, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Urwin, T. W.


English, Michael
McCuire, Michael
Varley, Eric G.


Ensor, David
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne valley)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne valley)



Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackle, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fernyhough, E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Finch, Harold
Maclennan, Robert
Weitzman, David


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wellbeloved, James


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Whitaker, Ben


Ford, Ben
MacPherson, Malcolm
White, Mrs. Eirene


Forrester, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Fowler, Gerry
Manuel, Archie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Freeson, Reginald
Mayhew, Christopher
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gardner, Tony
Mikardo, Ian
Winnick, David


Garrett, W. E.
Millan, Bruce
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)



Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gregory, Arnold
Moonman, Eric
Mr. John McCann and


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)

The Chairman: As I am of opinion that the principle of the Clause has been adequately discussed, I propose, under the discretion given to the Chair by Standing Order No. 47, to put the Question forthwith.—[Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Maudling: Without wishing in any way to question your discretion. Mr. Irving,

in view of the very considerable feelings held on this matter could you explain when and in what way protests can be made?

The Chairman: Not while the Chairman is putting the Question in the exercise of his discretion under Standing Order No. 47.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Chairman: I am sorry. I cannot entertain points of order while I am putting the Question. I am bound by the Standing Order, in the exercise of my discretion, to put the Question forthwith, and that excludes entertaining any points of order while the Question is being put to the Committee.

Mr. Gresham Cooke (seated and covered): On a point of Order—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Are you, Mr. Irving, prepared to hear submissions on the exercise of that discretion?

The Chairman: Order. Hon. Members must wait until the Division is in progress before they can assume their top hats.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 193, Noes 68.

While the Division was in progress—

Mr. Gresham Cooke (seated and covered): May I respectfully point out to you, Mr. Irving, that this Clause is headed "Exclusion of peers by succession." We have not debated that point at

Division No. 78.]
AYES
[12.34 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Hoy, James


Anderson, Donald
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ellis, John
Hunter, Adam


Binns, John
English, Michael
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Bishop, E. S.
Ensor, David
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Blackburn, F.
Evans, Fred (CaerphilIy)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Boston, Terence
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Finch, Harold
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S)


Boyden, James
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Ford, Ben
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Forrester, John
Judd, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fowler, Gerry
Lawson, George


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Leadbitter, Ted


Buchan, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Galpern, Sir Myer



Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Garrett, W. E.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Cant, R. B.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Carmichael, Neil
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lipton, Marcus


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Gregory, Arnold
Loughlin, Charles


Coe, Denis
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McCann, John


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacColl, James


Conlan, Bernard
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Macdonald, A. H.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McGuire, Michael


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hannan, William
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Harper, Joseph
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackie, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mackintosh, John P.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Haseldine, Norman
Maclennan, Robert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hattersley, Roy
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Dell, Edmund
Hazell, Bert
McNamara, J. Kevin


Dempsey, James
Henig, Stanley
MacPherson, Malcolm


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Dobson, Ray
Hilton, W. S.
Manuel, Archie


Doig, Peter
Hooley, Frank
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Dunn, James A.
Hooson, Emlyn
Mayhew, Christopher


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Millan, Bruce




Miller, Dr. M. S.
Probert, Arthur
Urwin, T. W.


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rankin, John
Varley, Eric G.


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Rees, Merlyn
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Moonman, Eric
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rowlands, E.
Weitzman, David


Murray, Albert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Whitaker, Ben


Oakes, Gordon
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
White, Mrs. Eirene


O'Malley, Brian
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wilkins, W. A.


Oram, Albert E.
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Small, William
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Palmer, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Pentland, Norman
Taverne, Dick



Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Thornton, Ernest
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Tinn, James
Mr. Neil McBride.


Price, William (Rugby)






NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Quenneil, Miss J. M.


Barnett, Joel
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Biffen, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Huckfield, Leslie
Ridsdale, Julian


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Rose, Paul


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Royle, Anthony


Brewls, John
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Ryan, John


Cooke, Robert
Kimball, Marcus
Sharples, Richard


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Sheldon, Robert


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lee, John (Reading)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Dance, James
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Tilney, John


Driberg, Tom
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vickcrs, Dame Joan


Eden, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Dame Irene


Emery, Peter
Mendelson, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Farr, John
Mikardo, Ian
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fletcher-Coolke, Charles
Monro, Hector
Wright, Esmond


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wylle, N. R.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Neave, Airey
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Newens, Stan



Glover, Sir Douglas
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhart, Philip
Orme, Stanley
Mr. John Biggs-Davison and


Gresham Cooke, R.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Mr. Victor Goodhew.

all. All that we have debated in the Amendments is whether there should be a certain number of representatives of the hereditary peers, either 75 or 20. We have not debated the main subject of the Clause, which is exclusion of peers by succession.

The Chairman: Either on a point of order or in any other way, at this moment I cannot enter into a discussion about the exercise of the discretion of the Chair under Standing Order No. 47.

Mr. Peter Emery(seated and covered): With respect, Mr. Irving, may I ask for your guidance as a matter of order for hon. Members who have waited for the "Clause stand part" debate specifically to deal with matters of the principle of succession, which has not been debated? How now are we to take part? I have waited all last night and this morning to make a speech in the "Clause stand part" debate. How now are we to register our feelings?

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to discuss the exercise of the discretion of the Chair. That is a thing I cannot do.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I move this Motion to ascertain the Government's reaction to this new situation. As I think you, Mr. Irving, will be aware and as the House is well a-ware, there is a good deal of opinion that Clause 1 has not been thoroughly discussed. I am not in any way challenging your Ruling or your discretion, but I am pointing out to the Government that the situation has been created by your perfectly proper Ruling and am asking what they intend to do about it—

The Chairman: Order. I want to help the right hon. Gentleman, but I can draw no other conclusion from his remarks than that he is reflecting on the discretion of the Chair, and that is out of order.

Mr. Maudling: With respect, I am not intending any such reflection. I am saying that there is a feeling of considerable unhappiness, which the Leader of the House should set about putting right.

Mr. Peart: I think that we have had a long and a reasonable debate and I would have thought that, in view of that fact, it would be for the convenience of all hon. Members that we should proceed with the Amendments to Clause 2 and finish at one o'clock.

Mr. Michael Foot: Mr. Michael Foot rose—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Mr. Biggs-Davison rose—

The Chairman: Order. The Question was accepted.

The Question is, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I found the response of the Leader of the House singularly and, if he will allow me to say so, unusually unhelpful. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), in the most reasonable terms, put to the right hon. Gentleman a problem which should concern him as Leader of the House more than any other matter—that is, that a very important issue, the termination of the hereditary principle in another place, should, on some appropriate occasion, be fully discussed. It is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman in arranging the business of the House, to meet what I think he will agree is the view of hon. Members in all quarters of the House.
Whatever view one takes of this matter—I should stray out of order if I expressed one—it is plainly of immense importance to alter the composition of a House which has stood for hundreds of years. This is a matter affecting, as, in another context, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said so well earlier, our Constitution for a very long time. Both as a Member of the Government and as Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Gentleman should certainly wish to help the House to secure that proper opportunity, within the rules of order, is given for the proper discussion of this issue.
If the right hon. Gentleman just mulishly sits there and talks about rising at one o'clock, and shows no willingness to meet the views of hon. Members who wish to discuss this matter, he will find, I think, that it will not avail him very much and that it might even not help the progress of this Measure. I beg him to remember his duty to the Committee and to think again.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: Mr. Michael Foot rose—

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): Yes, let us have a long debate now.

Mr. Foot: I do not know whether I heard the Home Secretary, who is in charge of the Bill, say, "Let us have a long debate now." I would ask whether that was an incitement or was meant as a contribution to our discussions. I do not think that it is a very helpful one—

Mr. Callaghan: Nor is this.

Mr. Foot: This is a Bill on which the name of the Home Secretary appears first among those who presented it. So, no doubt for many reasons which are satisfactory, he has not been able to attend the debate today so has not heard what the Attorney-General said to the Committee or the comments made from both sides about it. With great respect to the Home Secretary, before making suggestions that it was improper for the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to move this Motion, he should have taken into account what had happened in the Committee in the last three hours, because the right hon. Gentleman moved the Motion precisely because of what had happened. Therefore, with great respect to the Home Secretary, he is not qualified to give us any judgment upon these things which he has not heard.

Mr. Callaghan: I was allowing my hon. Friend to go on to see how far he would commit himself. He obviously has not noticed that I have been sitting here for nearly the whole of the debate.

Mr. Foot: If I am wrong, I apologise at once. I must say that I have never seen my right hon. Friend make himself so unobtrusive. We all know that he does everything on purpose. However, we are very glad to see that he has come along now. We can see him in full face as well as in profile. We are glad that he, as the master mind behind the Bill, the man who has enthusiastically backed it throughout, has come along to participate in the debates and take over from his juniors. It is high time that he did, in view of the difficulties in which we have got ourselves.
But I was distracted by my right hon. Friend's interruption. I strongly support the Motion of the right hon. Member for Barnet—

Mr. Callaghan: Of course my hon. Friend does.

Mr. Foot: I do so because I think that it is in the best interests of the House of Commons. It is the same Motion that I moved last night, although I was ruled out of order then, and I think that it would have been better if we had had it then, because, if the Government had


accepted it, as they could have done, it would have given the Attorney-General a longer time to consider the statement which he was to make to the Committee on this subject.
If the Attorney-General had come before us to make his statement this afternoon, having given full consideration to the matter, and possibly having been able to consult with others responsible for presenting the Bill, including the Home Secretary, I think that a different situation might have developed. But there is no doubt about the situation that has developed. Wherever the Home Secretary was eavesdropping in our proceedings earlier today, he must surely have overheard, from both sides of the Committee, that we are getting, as I believe, into deeper and deeper difficulties about the Bill.

Mr. Callaghan: Because my hon. Friend's eyesight is defective, he must not assume that I have not been sitting on the Front Bench in full view of everybody except himself the whole morning.

Mr. Foot: In that case my eyesight must be defective. I am sorry that the Home Secretary did not intervene earlier. He seems ready with his interventions now, but he might have interrupted during the proceedings. If he had been eager to assist the Committee on the matter he could have made the winding-up speech perhaps on the previous Clause.
We are now faced with the situation that on both sides there is a growing feeling that the Bill cannot go through in its present form. Therefore, I think that it was proper for the right hon. Member for Barnet to propose the normal procedure whereby the Government agree to take the matter away for consideration. They would not have lost anything. They are not gaining any time by resisting the proposal.
It would not be very fruitful for the Committee, but we could have a discussion until two o'clock on whether we should accept the right hon. Gentleman's Motion. I do not think that it would assist very much in getting the Bill through the Committee. It is a very big Bill indeed, There are many Amendments down. Every member of the Government who looks at it and any

Member who has attended all the time this morning and last night must be fully aware that the Bill will take days to get through if there is no sense of co-operation.
The right hon. Gentleman made his proposal in perfectly reasonable terms. He was not questioning the Ruling of the Chair. He was merely saying that he thought it would be more convenient to have the matter dealt with as he proposed. But immediately the Government jump to the conclusion that such a proposal has to be resisted. If they approach debates in this way, they will only add to their difficulties. They know that eventually they will have to concede on this point.
Moreover, I underline the scene, which the Home Secretary must have witnessed so clearly this morning, and the development which has occurred which is of great importance in the conduct of our proceedings on the Bill. Hitherto, the Bill has been propped up by the attitude of the Treasury Bench and the Opposition Front Bench. So long as that prop remains fairly stable I suppose that eventually the Bill can be passed through. But that prop was looking a bit shaky this morning. Despite all the valiant efforts of the right hon. Gentleman it was shaky. As we proceeded it looked even shakier still. Some of us gave it a gentle push every now and again, and we will give it a few more gentle pushes. That might assist the other kind of operations which are operating on the benches opposite.
If that prop is knocked out, what is the position of the Government? There are many complications to be taken into account. They might be in the position of getting the Bill through the Committee in defiance of the vast majority of Members opposite, in defiance of a considerable number on this side who are sticking to Labour Party policy, and in defiance finally of those who entered into the bargain, which the right hon. Gentleman does not like to call a bargain. If they get the Bill through in those circumstances, something might happen in the House of Lords. As I suggested, in terms which I should be happy to phrase in more elegant language, even worms in ermine can turn—and they might.

Mr. Callaghan: With the encouragement of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Foot: The Home Secretary is picking up everything now that he has taken up his full station on the Front Bench.
What happens then? We will have spent many days in Committee getting the Bill through. Despite all the rough wear and tear that the Government will endure during the process and the casualties that there may be on the Treasury Bench, they will eventually get this bleeding object into the other place and there they will finally cut its throat.
What happens to the great reform of the House of Lords then? Are we to have the Bill brought back to this place and go through the whole travail again, with the Government wasting more and more time and this issue enervated as if it is the greatest issue of the age? Is this what the Government think is a wise course? That is what could happen to the Government once they lose the support of the Opposition Front Bench. As an amateur judge, my judgment of these matters is that the strength of the Opposition Front Bench is greatly weakened. We saw the other day, on the racial question, that they were split wide open. The Opposition Chief Whip will be the first to acknowledge that.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Foot: He was so surprised that he went through the Lobby with them.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is getting away from the Motion.

Mr. Foot: That could easily happen again—and it is happening. I do not know whether the Chief Patronage Secretary opposite has been sitting secluded on the Front Bench listening to these proceedings all morning. I know that he has popped in occasionally. He has been a more frequent attender than the Home Secretary. However, I will not go too far into that matter.
I am trying to impress upon the Government, because they are the only people who do not seem to understand, that their support for the Bill, in the places where they thought it was absolutely secure, is crumbling. If it crumbles they will either be defeated here, or, as I prophesy, in another place. If that happens at the end of the whole proceedings, the humiliation for the Government will be much

worse than having to deal with the situation now.
That is why some of us have urged the Government that it is genuinely in their interests, although this comes from those of us who are bitterly opposed to the Bill and whose antagonism towards it becomes stronger the more we examine it. I never realised some of the horrors in the Bill before I heard them being elaborated. I did not come with an unprejudiced mind in the first place, but I never thought that such a Bill would be presented to us.
I do not know how enthusiastic the Home Secretary was about the Bill originally. It may be that he had gone through every word and comma, saw it as perfect, was determined that it should be fought through inch by inch, and that he would not take any objection from his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Social Services, the Leader of the House, or any others. It may be that his attitude is that he is determined to ram the Bill through. However, I think that in that case he must go back to the Cabinet and say that he has had second thoughts—or perhaps it is first thoughts. I do not know. At any rate, I think that he must go back to the Cabinet and say that it must choose between his first and his second thoughts, because the Government are now in a predicament from which they will not escape by adopting the attitude that they have taken towards the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman—a rigid disciplinarian attitude of saying, "We will have our way, because we happen to have a majority at the moment."
That will not solve this problem. If this was a short Bill with a few Clauses and not many Amendments, it might possibly work. Other Bills have been rammed through on that basis. But this is a Bill, as I said on Second Reading, with infinite possibilities of objection.
One of the virtues of the House of Commons is that it is able to mobilise its opinion and impress it on the Government. Wise Governments learn that at an early stage. They certainly do not solve problems by thinking that they can deal with them by objecting when proposals are made for an Adjournment which, in any case, will not cost them anything. They will not lose anything.


But apparently their prestige is at stake. They cannot accept that a Motion of this nature should be accepted.
1.0 p.m.
As a result, they have worsened the situation, which was bad enough, and we shall have further debates on all these Clauses. We shall have further debates on moving to report Progress. We shall have further discussions, such as we are having now, on the fundamental reason why the Government ought to think again about the Bill. These will proceed hour after hour, day after day, and week after week, and in the other place for weeks on end.
I say to the Government that they are getting themselves into a worse and worse difficulty. We plead with them to retreat before it is too late. If the right hon. Gentleman presses his Motion, I shall support it, because I believe that it has been moved in the interests of the House of Commons, and that it would be in the interests of the Government to accept it. I urge the Government to get up and say that they accept the Motion. We shall come back this afternoon, and I hope that the Government will agree to the proposition made earlier that they should, maybe not drop the Bill, but let the Cabinet consider it again for another week and decide what is their attitude to the question of the Preamble over which we have got into such difficulty. Let them consider their attitude to the Bill as a whole, and then come before the House again with a considered statement.
I urge the Government to do that in the interests of what I believe is best for the House of Commons. The Government are riding roughshod over the majority opinion on this side of the Committee. Against all the warnings which were given, they went ahead. We said that we would oppose the Government, and we are going to do so, but I hope that they will take into account the Parliamentary situation which has been created. I hope they will realise that eventually they will be forced to make a decision which it would be more graceful to make now. I believe that those who support the Motion are doing so in the best interests of the House of Commons.

Mr. Callaghan: I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) with great attention.

I always find his speeches of great value, because he is extremely honest and he tells us what is in his mind. This morning my hon. Friend has given us a clear revelation of what is in his mind in his attitude to the Bill, apart from one moment of dissembling at the beginning, when he appeared to be saying that he wanted to improve the Bill.
My hon. Friend does not want to do anything of the sort. He wants to kill the Bill. This is his object, and this is why he is supporting the Motion. He is not interested in improving the Bill, any more than are some others in this House.

Mr. Russell Kerr: It cannot be improved.

Mr. Callaghan: As my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) says, it cannot be improved.
I do not wish to enter into any discussion about this with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, but I sat through nearly all the debate yesterday on Clause 1. I was here until a late hour in the evening. I was not here at 10 o'clock this morning, because I had another meeting. I arrived a little late, but since then I have listened to nearly all the debate. I find it very interesting to sit here, to watch, and to listen, and I have learned a great deal.
I agree that the attitude of the Front Bench opposite has not been very heroic. I agree that the pillar seems to be a little shaky, that the bargain which was made on the introduction of this scheme, although supported by the Front Bench opposite, has not received very noticeable support, except by their abstention in the Lobby. This is a very interesting revelation. I agree that the Cabinet will, in due course, have to take this situation into account. It will have to consider the situation which is being created by the obvious opposition of a relatively small number of Members.

The Motion has been accepted, and it is, therefore, in order to discuss it. I point out to the Committee that the Government have just won three Divisions in a row.

Mr. Birch: With the Whips on.

Mr. Callaghan: That is not unusual. The right hon. Gentleman will get


apoplexy if he does not sit back and keep quiet. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government which kept the Whips on continuously. There are plenty of precedents for this, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.
I have every sympathy with what the Attorney-General said earlier this morning. One can make a mockery of the House of Commons. It is possible to make a mockery of its proceedings. It is possible, for example, when an understanding has been reached to adjourn at 1 o'clock, at 20 minutes to one to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again, and so waste the last 20 minutes of the time instead of getting on with moving a further Amendment. It is possible to make a mockery of these things.
The procedure of the House is designed to enable hon. Members to have a full expression of their views. The Government will take note of what is being done in this way. They will have to take note of the views of certainly some hon. Gentlemen opposite, if I may use their own words, that they intend to block the Bill. All these things have to be taken into account.
The present position, and the reason I shall resist the Motion, is that there was an understanding that we should adjourn at one o'clock today.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: An understanding?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes. It was not made with the hon. Gentleman. There are a number of hon. Members who apparently wish to speak.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Mr. Biggs-Davison rose—

Mr. Callaghan: No.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Callaghan: No.

The Chairman: Order. The Minister has said that he does not intend to give way. The hon. Member must, therefore, resume his seat.

Mr. Maudling: There was no understanding. We were told courteously what the Government intended to do.

Mr. Callaghan: I understand that there was no dissent from the proposal, and that nothing else was said about it. If the Opposition really want to twist the procedure in this way, they are entitled to do so, but the Government will have to take note of it.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton) rose—

Mr. Callaghan: No. I have sat here and listened to the tactics. I am as old a Parliamentary hand as most hon. Members here, and I know what is going on.
It is clear that whereas in the normal circumstances we would, at twenty minutes to one, have got on to the first Amendment to Clause 2, it was decided that we should instead have a little fun and games by discussing whether we should report progress. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been giving it out for a long time. They should understand that some of us can see what the tactics are, and know what is going on.
Because we know what is going on I think that it is as well to tell those hon. Members who are involved that we understand their tactics, and that, clearly, they will have to be taken into account in due course. I understand that that is what they want us to do. They want us to take account of what they are doing. They want us to take into account the fact that they say that the Bill will be blocked. That word is in HANSARD, and I take note of it.
We have been asked to reconsider the position, and we shall obviously need to do so in due course, but, as regards this Motion, if I may use a Parliamentary term, there can be no doubt that it is intended to delay the proceedings and not to accelerate them. Whatever the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, he cannot claim that when we have spent two full days and one morning on Clause 1 it has not been adequately debated. It has been, and I recognise this as well as the right hon. Gentleman does.
The synthetic indignation of the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) leaves me completely unmoved. I have sat in this House for as long as he has. I have watched him many times, and I know what his approach is.

Mr. Birch: Mr. Birch rose—

Mr. Callaghan: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to put to me a point arising out of what I have said?

Mr. Birch: Of course I do. The main question of principle arising under Clause 1 has not been discussed at all. This is the point.

The Chairman: Order. I cannot allow either right hon. Gentlemen to reflect on the discretion exercised by the Chair under Standing Order No. 47. If they wish to say that the matter should be discussed more, this is a different proposition.

Mr. Callaghan: The last thing I would—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. On the Ruling you have just given, Mr. Irving, if I may respectfully say so, the Standing Order under which you in your discretion acted earlier, refers to whether the Chairman is of opinion that the principle of the Clause has been discussed. With very great respect, you ruled that that opinion of yours should not be challenged at the time, but the Standing Order is based solely upon your opinion. In my respectful submission, this does not preclude right hon. and hon. Gentlemen from expressing a contrary opinion, although at the moment it is your opinion which is decisive.

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct; it is the opinion of the Chair. The point I am making, and the point which I must insist on making, is that neither on the occasion when it was sought to challenge the discretion of the Chair nor on this occasion is it the right moment to challenge that opinion in the exercise of discretion.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Surely it is open to any hon. Member, without challenging the fact that that was your opinion and that your opinion was at the moment decisive, on a subsequent occasion, as now, to express with equal sincerity a differing opinion.

Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order. As we now have until two o'clock, in view of the attitude of the Opposition, may I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman who wishes to pursue an argument should do so when I have sat

down, rather than raise it in the middle of my speech, since we clearly have plenty of time. Had the normal convention been observed, we would all have been at lunch, but since the hon. Gentlemen are sitting here and insist on making speeches, we are able to continue making our speeches until two o'clock.
That is the position which the Opposition have got us into, and it is typical—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order.

The Chairman: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is already on a point of order.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop rose—

The Chairman: I understood, although it was rather a lengthy one, the right hon. Gentleman was on a point of order.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, I have finished my submission on the point of order.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My point of order was how we would determine when the Home Secretary had finished his point of order, so that if a fresh point of order arose, it would be proper to raise it. If the Home Secretary was not prepared to tell the House when he had finished his point of order and returned to his speech, we would not know when to raise a point of order.

The Chairman: It is a point which is very clear now.

Mr. Callaghan: That last intervention is typical of a great deal of what we have had to put up with in the last two and a half days. I certainly take note of it, as the Opposition wish us to take note of it. We are faced with a series of frivolous interruptions and frivolous speeches which are repeating Second Reading debates, clearly designed to take up the time of the Committee without being obstructionist. That has been the whole purpose.
It has been said that we will lose the Bill. That is exactly the objective of a small group of Members who are determined to oppose it. They want us to lose the Bill. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants us to lose the Bill, but it is quite clear that there is a group of hon. Members determined that we shall now get the Bill. Am I misinterpreting them? There


is a combination of Members here who are determined to make sure that we do not get the Bill. I merely point out that this leads to a number of frivolous, lengthy, time-wasting speeches.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Keep to the point.

Mr. Callaghan: The point now is that we have until two o'clock instead of adjourning at one o'clock. Therefore, the Government may as well use the time as hon. Gentlemen opposite, having listened to a lot of drivel for a very long time.
So we are in this position, that a number of hon. Gentlemen, on this side of obstruction and while trying to keep just on the right side of the Chair, are determined to make the most lengthy speeches they can. I think that that at least has been established to the satisfaction of everybody in the Committee during the last two and half days. I am sure we are all agreed about that.
During one speech yesterday the Chair had to interrupt the speaker 48 times to call him to order. I have never sat in the House and heard a speaker called to order 48 times by the Chair. I think there were rather more times than that, but I am giving him the benefit of a little leeway.
The position is becoming clear. I readily acknowledge that it must be examined, and I would have thought, Mr. Irving, subject to anyone else wishing to continue the debate for as long as they wish to do so, it would be for the convenience of the Committee, as the Motion to report Progress has no more relevance than, and is just as frivolous as, many other debates we have listened to, that we should get on with Clause 2.
If we do not want to get on with Clause 2, and if hon. Members wish to continue to discuss the Motion, no doubt they will continue to discuss it at great length. But my recommendation to the Committee would be that we should now proceed to discussion of the first Amendment of Clause 2, if hon. Gentlemen are in earnest in saying that they wish to proceed with the Bill.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House ill served both the House and the Administration to

which he belongs by his reply to the reasonable Motion made at a reasonable time by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), and that miscalculation was made considerably worse in its effects by the petulant intervention made by the Home Secretary. One or two observations which fell from the Home Secretary in the course of that intervention I believe justify, indeed necessitate, this procedural debate being carried a little further.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had, apparently, a good deal of information to give about bargains. He said that there had been a bargain with the Front Bench of the Opposition on the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. Callaghan: No.

Mr. Powell: I took his words down, and we will see whether they are in HANSARD. I distinctly heard him say that, but I am glad if he now wishes to disavow it, because I was about to ask my right hon. Friend to make it clear that there had been no bargain on the introduction of the Bill. Let us get it clear that there is no bargain about the passing of the Bill through the House; that is absolutely clear.

Mr. Callaghan: I am always ready to withdraw words if I use them inadvertently when speaking without notes. That word "bargain" I used in a previous connotation, namely, that the scheme as it emerged was a bargain. It was to that I was directing myself. I used those words on Second Reading. There was no bargain about the introduction of the Bill, although one normally assumes, if Members have accepted a scheme, that they will not indulge in frivolous opposition, as, indeed, they have done, when it comes before the Committee.

Mr. Powell: I do not know which hon. Members the right hon. Gentleman has in mind in referring to frivolous opposition. Those who have sat through this debate, as he has not, will be aware that the vast majority of speeches have been very far from frivolous and have gone to the heart of about the most serious matter, the constitution of Parliament, that the House of Commons could possibly debate. However, I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the


candour with which he has corrected what he will probably find was inadvertently on the record and made it clear that there is no bargain on this side about the passage of the Bill.
There was a second bargain to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, a bargain to adjourn at 1 o'clock, a bargain to ask leave to report Progress at 1 o'clock.

Mr. Callaghan: An understanding

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman has modified it to an understanding. When a query was raised about that, it transpired that all he meant was that the Opposition had been informed that it was the intention of the Government to take steps for the House to rise at 1 o'clock. If the notification of an intention on the part of the Government is to be held to be a bargain made with the Opposition which binds the Opposition, then normal Parliamentary proceedings in this House will be virtually at an end, for all that will be necessary will be for the Government to notify what is their will and pleasure and we shall be held to be bound to that by a bargain.
At the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet proposed the Motion there were strong grounds for the Leader of the House to be reasonable and to accede to the proposition. The Home Secretary said that during his presence this morning he had learned a good deal. I fancy that the Government have been learning a good deal during these proceedings. A good deal of learning was done in the small hours of the morning when the Attorney-General was preparing the statement which he courteously and helpfully presented at the beginning of our proceedings this morning.
That statement, and the debate which followed it, was important. It presented the Committee with what in some respects is a new situation. Time and again hon. Members pointed out that we required time and opportunity to examine the advice of the Law Officer of the Crown as well as its significance, legal and constitutional, in relation to the Preamble which overshadows all our debates, not just on Clause 1 with which we are parting, but on all subsequent Clauses.
After all, the Government needed further time. They needed locus poenitentiae between 11 o'clock last night and 10 o'clock this morning, but we are expected to carry on after that important statement made by the Attorney-General without an opportunity to give it mature consideration and study. That reason alone would have been adequate for what would have been no more than a gesture on the part of the Leader of the House in accepting my right hon. Friend's proposition, at what was then a-quarter-to-one.
I join with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), from whom I dissent in so many respects, in telling the Leader of the House—this is the feeling of many hon. Members—that the kind of action which led him to repudiate the Motion proposed by my right hon. Friend will only get him into difficulties even deeper than those in which the Government already find themselves.
The Home Secretary seemed to say at one point that it was only a minority of hon. Members who, for one reason or another, detested the Bill and wanted it buried. There is a simple way for him to find out. I invite the Government to put the matter to the test. Let them say to their adherents—as to those
… adhering to other parties and members adhering to no party …
to borrow some words from the Preamble—that there is no Whip on the Bill, that they wish candidly and openly to ascertain their views on whether or not the Bill should pass and that no sort of disadvantage or prejudice—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Or discrimination?"]—or discrimination will accrue to any of those who express their opinion. Let the Government do what my right hon. Friends have candidly done and then they will learn where the feeling of hon. Members lies.

Mr. Callaghan: It would be interesting to have the right hon. Gentleman's answer to a question, since it might aid our progress. He said that if we followed the present line—he attacked the Lord President of the Council for turning down the Motion—we would get into trouble with the Bill. Is there any way in which the Government can get out of what he called trouble with the Bill, short of withdrawing the Bill?

Mr. Powell: With his long experience, the right hon. Gentleman knows the kind of difficulties into which a Government get when they show themselves to be obdurate, even with the minor details of a matter—

Mr. Callaghan: Answer the question.

Mr. Powell: I am answering—in response to the feeling of the House of Commons. In that case those difficulties can be superimposed on the difficulties which are inherent. I admit that I can do nothing to help the Government over those difficulties which are inherent in the Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman need not heap on top of those difficulties further unnecessary difficulties—

Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that either we can lose the Bill by allowing it to drift on, because he will do nothing to help—indeed, he will do everything to oppose it—or that there is something that the Government could do which would enable the Bill to go through? What is the view of the right hon. Gentleman and his small group of colleagues on this question?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Callaghan: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: It seems that the nerves of right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench are becoming a little frayed. Their behaviour is difficult to understand. I had the impression that the Government were worried about the progress with the Bill. [Interruption.] If that is so, why are we met here in the forenoon, at such an early stage of such an important Measure?
It seems curious that the Home Secretary, having listened to the serious debate this morning, should, if he wishes to make progress with the Bill, have intervened at length in our discussion of the Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) without furthering the interest of the Administration. He said that some hon. Members had been making a mockery of the House of Commons.

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan indicated assent.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Many of us are inclined to think that his speech did precisely

that. Many of us also believe that the Bill is designed to make a mockery of the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks were uncharacteristically discourteous and I wonder why he levelled such generalised accusations at hon. Members.
The Home Secretary seemed to join the filibuster. Everything he said seemed directed against Her Majesty's Opposition. He suggested that hon. Members on this side had been making frivolous and time-wasting speeches. I will willingly give way if the right hon. Gentleman can point to one speech made from this side which has not been a serious contribution. I have been here throughout our debates on this subject and have made only two quite short speeches.

Mr. Callaghan: A speech was made yesterday by an hon. Gentleman opposite in which it was stated—the hon. Gentleman will find it in HANSARD—that the purpose was to block the Bill and that all measures would be taken to block it.
I now repeat to the hon. Gentleman the question which I put, without answer, to his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Is there anything which would satisfy him and his small coterie of colleagues, except the complete withdrawal of the Bill? In what circumstances would they be willing to allow the Bill to go through?

An Hon. Member: A free vote.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: And a decent Parliamentary manner.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: It is one thing to say that hon. Members are determined to block a Bill. It is another to say that their conduct is wasting the time of their colleagues. There is a genuine distinction between the two, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman's nerves are frayed. It is why Jim is not sunny today. The reason is that the Government do not like a situation in which hon. Members, irrespective of party, are seriously applying their minds to the future of the Constitution. The Government consider it the duty of their supporters to go into the Lobby when they are told to, and to vote the matter through with as much dispatch as possible.
The Government also consider, although this has been denied, that they


have entered into some sort of agreement over the Bill with the Opposition Front Bench. That is not so. It has been denied by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet. There was an agreement between the two Front Benches on the general line set out in the White Paper, but it has been expressly denied today that there is any agreement between them that the Bill should be facilitated. If the Home Secretary denies that, I shall be glad to give way. What irks him is that this fundamental Measure cannot be rushed through the House. It is a Measure to change the constitution of centuries.

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: Two and a half days on one Clause.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. Cannot the Chair do something about the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[An HON. MEMBER: "He has been sacked from that job."]—who has carried on a running commentary, treating the House with complete disrespect? I do not understand what is getting into him this morning.

The Chairman: I am trying to keep an eye on all right hon. and hon. Members. I shall intervene when I feel it appropriate.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: We are within our rights and are discharging our duty in opposing a constitutional reform of the greatest magnitude which we consider to be harmful. It is not a reproach to be levelled by any Member against any other hon. Member to say that he is doing something wrong in seeking to defeat a Bill. The surprising thing is how brief, how much to the point and how serious the speeches on both sides have been.
I was challenged by the right hon. Gentleman to say whether I am just negative about this. I am not. I do not know whether he has studied the Notice Paper in detail, but he will find that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and various of my hon. Friends have proposed a very radical reform of the House of Lords, so we are not just being negative about its reform. My general position is that I should like to see a complete reform of the other place in accordance with the objects which we think it should have.

But if a reform such as I should like to see cannot find agreement in Parliament—and I do not think that it can—I should prefer the House of Lords not to be touched until agreement on a real and rational reform can be reached. That is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman's challenge.
It is a pity that we could not debate the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. I fully accept the Ruling of the Chair and cannot argue about that, but there are very special circumstances today. I warmly support the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), because this testy, jumpy, nervy Administration should go away and be given time to consider the strong feelings about the Bill throughout the Committee, and to consider their own conduct.
Many of us have been placed in a very difficult position today. We were committed to important duties in Standing Committee upstairs, and we are deeply interested in this Bill. At the start of today's sitting, the Attorney-General replied with some asperity to an intervention of mine by saying that he had hoped that the hon. Member for Chigwell would be detained elsewhere. In other words, he was saying that he thought that the Government had been rather clever because some of the people most deeply concerned with the Bill would be detained and would not be present for the debate.
That is a reason why it is a great pity that the Chair, which, of course, had to make the decision, decided that the principle of Clause 1 could not be discussed. I am one of several hon. Members deeply interested in the Bill who have been prevented from speaking this morning because of our inescapable duties in Standing Committee.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) paid a tribute to the other place. This was not his usual form, because he usually considers their Lordships to be lower than ermine. But he said that he hoped that if this House was misguided enough to pass the Bill their Lordships would deal with it, so at least one thing that has come out of our debates is that we have a new admirer of the House of Lords in the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Emery: I have paid particular attention to the debate because in moving the Motion to report Progress my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) put a specific question to the Leader of the House to which neither he nor the Home Secretary have given us a reply.
As will be realised from the point of order I raised during the Division, it is the opinion of some of us who waited throughout much of the debate yesterday and this morning that discussion of the principle of succession, which is the principle of Clause 1, was best done on a stand part debate than on any of the Amendments. It was that specific matter that concerned me, because it was obvious that no debate on principle had taken place.

The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not proceed further in this respect.

Mr. Emery: I accept your Ruling and absolute right, Mr. Irving, to act as you did. But this cannot prevent me from feeling particularly perturbed that when I have wished to make my views quite clear on the principle behind the Clause—

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is entirely in order to argue that the whole matter requires further debate in respect of its importance. But I think that he is verging on the question of the discretion of the Chair in the exercise of Standing Order No. 47.

Mr. Emery: If that was implied, I immediately withdraw, because it was not what I intended. I had tried to make that clear.
But there is a major matter of principle that needs further debate, and that is what my right hon. Friend put to the Leader of the House when he asked leave to report Progress and sit again. A number of us are concerned about this. It does not do the House any good for the Home Secretary to accuse hon. Members of making frivolous, lengthy and time-wasting speeches. Those are adjectives which could easily be applied to his own contribution. He added that if we are to be on the Motion until two o'clock the Government can take up some of the time. Those may not be

his exact words, but they are close to what he said. If that is not thought to be frivolous and time-wasting on the Motion I do not know what is.
We have not had a direct reply to my point. The Home Secretary says that we have had 2½ days of debate on Clause 1, but it alters the whole principle of our Constitution. It is probably as important constitutionally as anything I have known in my nine and a bit years in the House. If hon. Members feel that they should make their opinions properly known to the Government, the necessary time should be provided for them to do so on this matter as much on any other.
I have not attempted to delay the passage of the Bill. In many respects I greatly favour reform, but I believe that the manner proposed in Clause 1 is wrong. This is why it was reasonable for my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet, in view of what has taken place this morning, particularly the statement by the Attorney-General, to submit that there is a need for the Government to reconsider this matter. Yet the Government apparently see no point in doing so. I beg the Leader of the House to consider the two points I have made, because if we are not to be allowed a new method of debating these points many of us will be dissatisfied.
I believe that the Home Secretary's speech revealed that he is really seeking to turn this into a justification for his asking for a timetable Motion. I see him smiling, but he cannot deny that that was the thought that passed through his mind. If he is considering such a Motion, after the Committee has disposed of only Clause 1, his conduct will be reprehensible and will bring upon him a measure of condemnation from many who, marginally, support the Bill. If the Government use that device to get the Bill through, although on much of the rest of the Bill I was willing to support the Government, I shall turn completely against them. I hope that by this revelation this morning we shall ensure that that step is not taken by the Government.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) will appreciate that I cannot involve myself in an argument about the decision taken by the


Chair that there should be no debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". I am prepared to accept the Motion to report Progress, if it is for the convenience of the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress.

ADJOURNMENT

The Business having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Two o'clock p.m.

Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Royal Ordnance Factories

Mr. Alison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution was made by all Royal Ornance Factories and the Royal Ordnance Factory, Barn-bow, respectively, to Great Britain's export earnings in 1967 and 1968.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): Royal Ordnance Factories administered by the Ministry of Defence completed export work worth £4,628,000 during the financial year 1967–68. As export orders are often spread over several factories it would be misleading and invidious to quote figures for individual factories.

Mr. Alison: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the figure of £4 million out of an R.O.F. turnover of over £40 million is a modest percentage? Will he ensure that these factories, particularly Barnbow, do not offer extraordinary inducements to skilled engineering labour, such as Sunday overtime, so that export firms nearby are starved of labour?

Mr. Boyden: This is very much in mind in the Royal Ordnance Factories and is being done.

Mr. Alison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what future increases or decreases in work loads for the existing Royal Ordnance Factories he estimates will result from the Government's current defence plans and policies.

Mr. Boyden: None in the next few years.

Mr. Alison: How is this so, in view of the forecast made by the Secretary of State that defence expenditure is going to decline substantially? Does this mean that the Royal Ordnance Factories are to be kept open doing civil work when they might do better to release skilled engineering labour for work elsewhere?

Mr. Boyden: There is a considerable possibility that the competitiveness of these factories will enable them to take a bigger share of Service orders and exports also may be increased. It is also hoped that civil work will increase.

Mr. Ramsden: Are the Government planning any large scale rationalisation of the whole organisation of Royal Ordnance Factories consequent upon the decision to run down the Armed Forces?

Mr. Boyden: They are under constant review and every attempt is being made to improve their efficiency.

Anglo-German Combat Aircraft

Mr. Robert L. Howarth: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about negotiations for the building of the multi-rôle combat aircraft.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement about the Anglo-German multi-rôle combat aircraft.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): The major results of the feasibility study were presented by the firms at the beginning of this month. They are now being evaluated and discussed.

Mr. Howarth: Has there been agreement on the number of engines the aircraft should have and on whether it should have variable geometry?

Mr. Healey: It has been agreed that the aircraft should have variable geometry. There is still some discussion about the number of engines and their origin.

Mr. Goodhew: Does this mean that the R.A.F. is at last to have a long range all-weather low-level strike capability? Or is this aircraft, like the AFVG, the TSR2 and the F111, likely quietly to disappear after the defence debate?

Mr. Healey: In so far as that supplementary question was intended seriously, my reply is that if the Governments agree to proceed with this project and it reaches an advanced stage in the next year or two, we can be confident that the Royal Air Force will have a large number of these aircraft in the 1970s.

Mr. Rippon: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the differences of opinion about design do not amount to various countries putting forward entirely different operational requirements? Can he also give an assurance that if agreement cannot be reached—although we hope it can—we will be prepared, if necessary, to produce this aircraft ourselves?

Mr. Healey: It is well known that this is to be a multi-rôle aircraft, like the Jaguar, which is very successful and is being produced by Britain and France together, for five separate rôles—three French and two British. There are differing requirements among the countries participating in this project, but feasibility studies show that their requirements can be obtained in a aircraft of 80 per cent. commonality, particularly as regards airframe and engines. The right hon. Gentleman's final supplementary question is hypothetical, and no wise politician ever answers a hypothetical question.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the estimate of £2,000 million roughly correct? Are not such estimates nearly always exceeded? Is it not nonsense for us in our present economic situation to be considering such expenditure?

Mr. Healey: We must consider any expenditure necessary to guarantee our peace and security and to make our proper contribution to the alliance. I can give no authority to any of the widely differing estimates of cost that I have seen in the Press.

Lockheed C5A Transport Aircraft

Mr. Robert L. Howarth: asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent he has studied the requirement for the purchase of the Lockheed C5A transport aircraft; and with what result.

The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. John Morris): We are still examining the size of transport force we shall need after the date of 1972, when

the withdrawals from east of Suez are complete. It is too soon to say whether or not we shall need an aircraft like the C5A.

Mr. Howarth: Does not the Russian use of heavy transport aircraft during the invasion of Czechoslovakia last August show the importance of having aircraft which can embark not only men but heavy equipment as well?

Mr. Morris: I note that point, but my hon. Friend seems unaware that we have just re-equipped our transport force.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: In any discussions we may have about future United States military aircraft purchases, will the Government ensure that the United States understands that we will not buy any more American aircraft unless this is tied to a firm offset agreement whereby the Americans will buy some British aircraft?

Mr. Morris: We have done very well with offset agreements under my right hon. Friend, and we shall continue to seek to do better than the last Administration.

Malta

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the British defence facilities remaining in Malta; and what plans he has to renegotiate the defence treaty with the Maltese Government.

Mr. Healey: British defence facilities remaining in Malta include berths for naval vessels, fuelling, victualling, and some maintenance facilities; domestic accommodation, training, welfare and recreational facilities; airfield and associated facilities for resident squadrons and aircraft in transit; joint-Service communications facilities. The negotiation of treaties is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

Mr. Wall: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the defence treaty with Malta, signed on independence, has been abrogated? Are the British Government going to have talks with the Maltese to see what the defence position is?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. The defence agreement is in force until September, 1974.

Aircraft Carriers (VTOL Aircraft)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what studies are being made of flat tops operating vertical or short take-off aircraft.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Dr. David Owen): Trials have demonstrated that vertical or short take-off aircraft could operate from the existing aircraft carriers and commando ships and that VTOL aircraft could take-off and land on the "Tiger" Class cruisers after conversion. Design studies of the new surface ships will, of course, take account of developments which may occur during their life in aircraft as in other weapons systems.

Mr. Wall: After the Secretary of State's remarks about the Mediterranean, can the hon. Gentleman explain how British shipping interests in the Indian Ocean can be defended without aircraft carriers? Will he at least go so far as to maintain "Hermes", "Ark Royal" and "Eagle" in service until the mid-1970s?

Dr. Owen: That goes wider than the Question on the Order Paper. We have conducted successful trials from carriers, but no decision has been taken about the future of these ships beyond 1972.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the failure of design staffs at present, can my hon. Friend assure us that, both in sea work and air work, the design staffs concerned will match up to the need?

Dr. Owen: The Harrier is a first-class aircraft and has VTOL capability, and we are surveying the possibility of its use in small ships.

Mr. Rippon: Will the hon. Gentleman be more specific about the studies being made of a new generation of aircraft carriers for this purpose, whether he describes them as "flat tops" or "mini-carriers", or whatever?

Dr. Owen: We have no plans for designing a ship for the specific purpose of operating VTOL aircraft.

Nuclear-Powered Warship

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects

the Royal Navy's first nuclear-powered surface warship will be laid down.

Mr. John Morris: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to a similar Question from the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 11th December, 1968.—[Vol. 775, c. 150.]

Mr. Farr: Is it not time the Government did something about this? Is he aware that not only the United States but Russia, Germany, Italy and Japan all have nuclear-powered surface vessels either in use or in preparation for use?

Mr. Morris: Within the resources we can devote to the Royal Navy in the next few years, we simply cannot afford a programme of nuclear surface ships using the reactors available at present.

Polaris Submarines

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for building a further Polaris submarine.

Mr. Healey: None, Sir.

Mr. Farr: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the complexity of maintaining these Polaris vessels, there is a real risk that we shall never have more than one permanently on patrol at any one time, with only four in use?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir, I do not accept that at all. We plan to have two on patrol the great majority of the time. I agree that the maintenance and refitting of these ships is a great deal more complex than that for normal naval vessels, where with a force of four we would expect to have over two permanently on patrol.

Mr. Crawshaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a very gratifying reply? Can he tell the House that we do at all times have two on active patrol and away from the bases where they would be subject to sabotage?

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend did not listen to my answer. I said that we would have two on patrol for the great majority of the time, but not absolutely all the time.

Mr. Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep an open mind on this question, bearing in mind the importance of ensuring that we have a sufficient number operational at the critical moment.


and also remembering the very splendid defence he made recently of the cost-effectiveness of the Polaris force, which is equivalent to 30,000 Hiroshimas yet only costs 1 per cent. of the defence budget?

Mr. Healey: Yes, but if one built more Polaris submarines the cost-effectiveness would be a great deal more open to argument. I was talking about the running costs of the force of four, the capital cost of which we have now completely paid or else committed. On the earlier question, I would like to make it clear that in normal circumstances we would expect to have two on patrol for the great majority of the time. In times of tension we would be pretty certain of having two and might well have three.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many of Great Britain's Polaris submarines are contributed to the collective Western strategic nuclear deterrent.

Mr.Healey: When operational, all four of Britain's Polaris submarines will be contributed to the Western strategic nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Marten: Can the Secretary of State say whether we still have the right to withdraw this British deterrent from the collective rôle if Britain needs it independently for her own purposes?

Mr. Healey: Yes, as I have made clear many times in this House, we have the right, but we cannot conceive of any circumstances in which we would need to exercise it.

Mr. Ridsdale: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that as the co-ordination of our nuclear policy with the Americans is absolutely vital it is most unwise to make the kind of remarks he did about blasting Russian ships out of the Eastern Mediterranean with nuclear strikes? Did he clear these remarks with the allies?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, grossly misinformed. I said nothing about nuclear strikes in the Eastern Mediterranean.

N.A.T.O. Countries (Arms)

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that arms supplied

to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies are not used outside Europe.

Mr. Healey: Members of N.A.T.O. obtain their military equipment either from domestic sources or, in the case of external supply, under individual arrangement which may include specific agreements between member countries. There is no N.A.T.O.-wide policy regarding the procurement or use of arms by member Governments.

Mr. Fraser: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there ought to be such a policy? Is he aware that I have here part of a N.A.T.O. rocket used by the Portuguese to kill citizens in Zambia? Does he realise that N.A.T.O. arms such as Sabre jets, small arms, ammunition and so forth obtained from N.A.T.O. sources are being used against the British Commonwealth? Is it not time that we had a policy in conjunction with our allies to stop this?

Mr. Healey: With great respect to my hon. Friend who produced some very interesting and important evidence on his recent visit to Africa, I think he would agree with me that the fragment of a shell which he holds in his hand was provided by a country which, although a member of the Alliance, is not a member of N.A.T.O.

Sale of Warships (Argentine)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the negotiations undertaken by his Department for the sale of warships to the Argentine.

Mr. John Morris: No, Sir. We do not as a rule reveal any details of negotiations in progress.

Mr. Peyton: However desirable it may be to sell such ships to the Argentine, will the Minister agree that it would be a very shoddy thing to incur such a sale as part of a barter arrangement involving the destiny of the Falkland Islands?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is a man of great initiative and great courage. He should not bring his own skeletons and put them in our cupboard. At no time have we linked any negotiations on warships with either the Falkland Islands or the issue of meat.

Middle and Far East

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when, according to his plans, the capability based in this country for the purpose of assisting our friends and allies in the Middle and Far-East will be ready; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Healey: We have no plans to maintain a special capability for use outside Europe after our withdrawal from the Middle and Far East is completed. We shall rely on our general capability which can be deployed overseas as, in our judgment, circumstances demand.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the former Foreign Secretary, not much more than a year ago, put great emphasis on the existence of this capability as an answer to the suggestion that we were abandoning our friends and allies in the Far East? Have we lost "Capability Brown" and now got only "Incredibility Healey?"

Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman's information is not as good as his wit. The fact is that we have, as I have just made clear, the capability to deploy forces from the European area to the Far East as, in our judgment, circumstances demand. We shall demonstrate this capability in practice in an exercise with four of our Commonwealth partners in the Far East next year.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Who are our friends and allies in the Middle East?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Healey: If my hon. Friend recalls, I talked about our partners in the Far East.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether ships of the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary will be part of the general capability to which he referred?

Mr. Healey: Of course.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the capability to which he referred includes the 170,000 ex-National Servicemen who are to be retained after July next as a result of legislation introduced by the Government? Does this not mean that conscripted men will exceed the number of volunteers in the

Armed Forces and that conscription still remains the policy of the Government?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. If my right hon. Friend looks at what was said by my right hon. Friend, or if he looks at tomorrow's White Paper, which I cannot anticipate, he will see that out of the 170,000 ex-National Servicemen who have a liability for service under the Army General Reserve, there are no plans for calling up more than 15,000, and those would be called in only in circumstances—[Interruption.] These were plans laid by the previous Government, as the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Rams-den) will know, as he was Secretary of State for War. I think that he introduced this proposal. These men would be called up only in cases of grave national emergency, primarily as individual reinforcements for our forces in Germany.

Mr. Rippon: What do the Government have to say about this legislation to which the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) referred? What legislation have they in mind? Has this been revealed only to the Parliamentary Labour Party?

Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should recall that my right hon. Friend referred to the possibility of legislation in a speech he made before Christmas. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman was dozing at the time.

Army Recruiting

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is now the shortfall in Army recruiting; and what action he is now taking to secure an improvement.

Mr. Boyden: Allowing for recruit wastage there will be a shortfall of about 9,000 adult males on 1st April, 1969. I shall shortly be announcing measures to improve recruiting and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the pay of the Forces is now being reviewed by the National Board on Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the hon. Gentleman now appreciate that a great deal of the shortfall is due both to the Government's attitude of discouragement towards the voluntary forces and their deliberate destruction of famous regiments with fine military tradition? Will


he give assurance that, whatever steps the Government are to take, they will include a revision of these decisions and that their decisions will be given first to the House and not, as in the case of the three-year recruiting period, to the Press?

Mr. Boyden: No, Sir. There will be plenty of opportunity for debating this in the very near future. Far from accepting what the right hon. Gentleman says, some hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House have, by their constant criticism of the Forces, to take some responsibility for this shortfall.

Mr. Whitaker: As to the recruits with which we are helping to defend certain sheikhly countries in the Persian Gulf, in view of the petty-minded anti-Semitic restrictions which these countries have placed on them, instead of being grateful, will he give a firm statement that we will withdraw troops from defending these countries unless they stop these racialist activities?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Younger: How can the Minister be surprised recruiting is so bad when he continually destroys the regiments which produce the most recruits? Is he not aware that last year the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders produced nearly 40 per cent. of recruits to the Highland Regiments alone? Will he in his measures to improve recruiting reprieve that regiment from the axe?

Mr. Boyden: That is misleading, as I shall tell the hon. Gentleman in answer to a later Question.

Mr. Ramsden: Is it not a fact that so long as the Government dilly-dally and fail to introduce measures to increase Forces' pay, the effect of this is deliberately to repress the level of recruits, since Forces rates are held way below comparable civilian rates? Is this not scandalous in view of the present shortage—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are Questions on Forces' pay later. We should not anticipate Questions.

Local Overseas Allowances (Germany)

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for defence whether,

arising out of the 11 per cent. purchase tax imposed by the German Government, he will reconsider the rates of local overseas allowances made retrospective to March 1968 in the British Army of the Rhine with a view to increasing such rates; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): No, Sir. The added value tax to which the hon. and learned Member presumably refers was first imposed by the Federal Government of Germany on 1st January, 1968, and its effects on prices in that country were therefore taken into account in the full review of local overseas allowances for officers and men serving with the British Army of the Rhine which took place in May last year.

Sir Knox Cunningham: In view of these kind of measures taken by a foreign country which affect general prices, will the Minister see that a revision of the rates takes place? When are the Government to get a fair deal for Servicemen and their families abroad?

Mr. Reynolds: I thought I had explained in my original Answer that this increase in tax took place on 1st January and that the increase in local overseas allowance in B.A.O.R., which among other things takes account of this extra expenditure, came into effect in May, very soon afterwards.

White Paper on Defence (Civilian Workers)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he proposes to take after publication of the forthcoming White Paper on Defence to ensure the fullest possible consultation between his Department and the civilian workers affected by its implications.

Mr. Reynolds: There will be the fullest consultation through existing Whitley Councils and Committees which are specifically constituted for the purpose.

Mr. Judd: Is my hon. Friend aware that after a long and anxious wait dockyard workers and the local community will want absolutely clear-cut information on redundancy, pay, prospects, the long-term rôle of the yards and policy on consultation with other Ministries about alternative industry in the area?

Mr. Reynolds: I am making arrangements during the next few days to answer pretty well all the questions the hon. Member raises.

Mr. Ramsden: Will there be a full statement about the outcome of this review of naval dockyard capacity? In particular, will it explain the method adopted by the Government in reducing this capacity, where necessary, and the choice of method as between running down over the whole area or closing down individual establishments? There is great public concern.

Mr. Reynolds: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there will be a White Paper on Defence published at 11.30 tomorrow morning. I must ask him to await that.

Portugal (Supply of Arms)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence why armaments are supplied by Great Britain to Portugal.

Mr. Healey: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister repeated to the House on 11th February, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to supply arms to Portugal for use outside her N.A.T.O. responsibilities in Europe.—[Vol. 777, c. 1117.]

Mr. Judd: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he recalls his Answer in this House on 18th December? How can we be seen to be in support of the African peoples' desire for independence if a close N.A.T.O. ally is using standard N.A.T.O. equipment for wars of colonial repression in Africa? What representations axe we making to Portugal?

Mr. Healey: With respect, that is a completely different question, which I answered to a Question put down by another hon. Member a few moments ago.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Can the Minister give us an assurance that none of the terrorists operating in the overseas territories of our Portuguese allies are being supplied, directly or indirectly, with British arms, bearing in mind that many are trained in Commonwealth countries?

Mediterranean

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement

on the balance of naval power in the Mediterranean.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what increase in British naval strength has now occurred in the Mediterranean; and what additional units he now proposes, having regard to the continuous increase in Russian strength.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what further steps he is taking to increase Great Britain's naval contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in the eastern Mediterranean.

Mr. Healey: The Soviet presence in the Mediterranean averaged 20 warships, including submarines, together with support vessels, during 1968. Our latest assessment is that it currently consists of 1 cruiser, 7 destroyers/escorts, 2 submarine depot ships, 2 landing ships, about 6 submarines, and supporting auxiliaries. Allied maritime forces in the Mediterranean, which include the United States Sixth Fleet, are considerably superior, both in numbers and fire power, to those of the Soviet Navy. As far as the Royal Navy is concerned, I have nothing to add to the reply by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration on 14th November, 1968, in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon).—[Vol. 773, c. 146–7.]

Mr. Marten: As the right hon. Gentleman has told Der Spiegel that all Russian ships would be sunk in minutes, did he include in that rather snappy naval appreciation the sinking of missile-carrying submarines belonging to Russia?

Mr. Healey: Yes, I was including all ships. The House ought to understand that the function of warships in war—and I was taking a warlike situation—is to survive and sink the enemy before the enemy sinks them. N.A.T.O. warships in the Mediterranean outnumber Soviet warships there by greatly over 10 to 1. In addition, Soviet ships operate without any air cover whatever, while N.A.T.O. ships operate with hundreds of strike and fighter aircraft available from land bases in addition to the seaborne forces of the American Sixth Fleet.

Mr. Mayhew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is perfectly correct about the vulnerability of the Soviet ships in the Eastern Mediterranean? Is he also aware that their real importance is their political influence in the Eastern Mediterranean? What measures is he taking to increase the British naval presence there, and what programme has he for flag-flying this year around the Mediterranean ports?

Mr. Healey: I am aware of that, and I said it in my interview with Der Spiegel. I also said it in the House last autumn. The main function of the Soviet ships in the Mediterranean is not a military but a political function. One reason why we have already secured a very substantial naval presence in the Mediterranean is precisely to serve the purpose to which my right hon. Friend refers.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the functions of warships in war require effective naval bases? Would he renegotiate the Malta agreement to allow for the return of substantial naval establishments to Malta which would be highly welcome to the Maltese as well as to the British elements in the Mediterranean?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman's information is grossly out of date. Nearly all the naval vessels operating in the Mediterranean operate without bases in the Mediterranean but with afloat support. That applies to the United States, British and Soviet navies.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of my right hon. Friend's statement about the balance of naval power in the Mediterranean, is it not now clear that we do not require an aircraft carrier there?

Mr. Healey: We do not require an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean to provide maritime support for the British fleet. It was never planned, even by the previous Government, to keep an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean for this purpose. But as long as we have an aircraft carrier its capability in many other rôles in the Mediterranean is valuable, and that is why we have decided to deploy an assault or commando ship or strike carrier in the Mediterranean during the next two years.

Sir A. V. Harvey: In making his statement, did the right hon. Gentleman

consider the possibility of the Soviet Union basing military aircraft in Egypt or Algeria?

Mr. Healey: Not only did I consider it, but I referred to it in my interview in Der Spiegel. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read it before our next Question Time.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what Western European Union member countries other than the United Kingdom have assigned aircraft for reconnaissance in the Mediterranean.

Mr. Healey: The assignment of forces to N.A.T.O. for use in particular N.A.T.O. areas is a matter for the N.A.T.O authorities and the countries concerned, and is not for me to answer in respect of other countries.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Would the right hon. Gentleman press on all those concerned, and our allies in particular, that it is important to assign forces and not merely to earmark them so that they may be properly trained in existing patrols in the Eastern Mediterranean?

Mr. Healey: Earmarked forces are properly trained and are trained in the Mediterranean. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured when I tell him that he can safely assume that N.A.T.O. countries with frontiers on the Mediterranean seaboard have a reconnaissance capability committed in some way or other to N.A.T.O., but not all members of W.E.U. have frontiers on the Mediterranean and not all members of W.E.U. are members of N.A.T.O.

Malaysia (R.A.F. Units)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will propose the stationing of Royal Air Force units in Malaysia until approximately 1971, in return for Great Britain supplying Harrier jet aircraft.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek an agreement with the Malaysian Government concerning the provision of military aircraft for Malaysia.

Mr. Healey: There are already certain Royal Air Force units stationed in West Malaysia and they will remain


there until they are withdrawn as part of our general rundown in the Far East. We do not consider that there is any requirement for Royal Air Force units to be stationed in East Malaysia at present. The Malaysian Government have been given all relevant information about British military aircraft, including the Harrier and we are in continuing consultation with them.

Sir G. Nabarro: But would the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that nothing will be done by his Ministry or by his colleagues which might cause Malaysia and Singapore to order French and foreign aircraft in preference to British aircraft? Does he not realise that unless the Harriers are supplied early enough they will order foreign aircraft?

Mr. Healey: It is entirely for the Government of independent Commonwealth countries to decide which aircraft meets their needs. The Singapore Government have already decided to buy British aircraft—a number of Hunters and the BAC167. The Malaysian Government are considering a mix of British aircraft consisting of the Hunter and the Harrier and certain other possibilities.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Has my right hon. Friend seen Press reports that if the Malaysian Government bought Mirage fighters they would need French pilots to operate them?

Mr. Healey: I have seen reports that the Prime Minister of Malaysia suggested that if they bought Mirage aircraft they would hope to acquire French pilots with them. Whether that would be possible I do not know. No decision has been taken by the Malaysian Government in this matter.

Defence Exports

Mr. Burden: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of export orders for British arms or military equipment, including military aircraft, in the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968.

Mr. John Morris: The value of defence exports was £120 million in 1965, £152 million in 1966, £150 million in 1967, and is estimated to be about £185 milion in 1968.

Mr. Burden: Would the hon. Gentleman say what amount in the last year is due to offset agreements?

Mr. Morris: I cannot give the figures without notice. But these figures include matters which arise under the offset arrangements.

Dame Joan Vickers: Can the hon. Gentleman say what amount of this equipment went to the Federal Government in Nigeria?

Mr. Morris: Not without notice.

Chatham Dockyard

Mr. Burden: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an undertaking that cuts in defence will neither affect the work-load nor the number of persons employed in Chatham Dockyard in the foreseeable future.

Dr. David Owen: I must ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the Defence White Paper tomorrow.

Mr. Burden: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance? In March, 1966, the Prime Minister—and I have the letter in my hand—wrote and said—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have quotations in a supplementary question.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman's predecessor gave an assurance in July 1966 that there was a full work load for Chatham Dockyard in the foreseeable future. If there is not a full work load now, what is its foreseeable future in view of the Government's defence plans? The Government seem to be unable to look further than their noses.

Dr. Owen: I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient and to await the publication of the Defence White Paper tomorrow.

Training Facilities (N.A.T.O. Forces)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what naval training facilities are currently being provided by this country to other European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Reynolds: Last year over 600 personnel from European N.A.T.O.


countries underwent training in United Kingdom Naval Establishments, and work up and other ship training was provided at Portland and Londonderry.

Mr. Mayhew: Is my hon. Friend aware that these naval training facilities have an extremely high reputation in Western Europe? Would he consider expanding them, which might make a contribution to our wider European policies?

Mr. Reynolds: The main limitation is the amount of facilities available for our own personnel. To a large extent, that governs the amount which we can make available to other countries. We are only too pleased to help when we can, but there are limiting factors of space and other considerations.

Military Aircraft (Accident Statistics)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has completed his review of present practice regarding the publication of military aircraft accident statistics; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Reynolds: I hope to be in a position to make a statement in the near future.

Mr. Onslow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he should have been able to make a statement by now?

Mr. Reynolds: Generally I would rather have all the facts before making a decision.

Army Courts Martial (Absent Without Leave)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is now in a position to give the total number of Army personnel who were court-martialed for absence without leave during 1968; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Boyden: 958.

Mr. Onslow: Since that represents an increase of over 15 per cent. on the 1965 figure, does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that there must have been a very significant decline in Army morale?

Mr. Boyden: It is a serious increase, but it does not indicate a decline in

morale. One of the reasons for it is that soldiers nowadays take far more interest in their own domestic matters. This is one reason why they sometimes go absent.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the level of severity of punishment given in these cases?

Mr. Boyden: That is hardly relevant.

CS Gas Grenades

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much public money is being spent on the development by his Department of special grenades for disseminating CS riot gas; and if he will now order this work to cease.

Mr. John Morris: I presume my hon. Friend has in mind the report published in The Guardian on 22nd January about an American device for scattering CS. No public money is being spent on the development of this device and there is no intention to develop it.

Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a welcome answer? Can he give an assurance that this country will not indulge in this kind of scientific devilry?

Mr. Morris: I am not sure what my hon. Friend has in mind when he uses the words "scientific devilry". All I can say is that we have no interest in this particular device.

Malaysia and Singapore Radar Stations

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make arrangements to transfer the Western Hill (Malaya) and Singapore military radar stations to Malaysia and Singapore; and if he will provide under contract the necessary technical assistance until local personnel can be trained.

Mr. Healey: We are discussing with the Malaysian and Singapore Governments the transfer of the radar stations at Western Hill and Bukit Gombak. We shall consider sympathetically any requests they put to us for help in maintaining and operating the stations.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: That is the first time I have had a satisfactory answer.

Mr. Healey: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing to answer.

F111 Aircraft (Cancellation Charges)

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the £25 million in dollars agreed as a cancellation charge for the F111 will be charged to the defence budget; and whether other defence projects will be cancelled or postponed in order to make the necessary sum available.

Mr. Healey: May I express my gratitude for the very kind words just offered by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing). In reward may I tell him the dollar costs arising from the cancellation of the F111 have not yet been finally agreed but as a result of further discussions with the American authorities the estimate of £25 million previously given to the House is now likely to be reduced still further to about £16 million. We had in fact already paid about £20 million in progress payments on the F111 before cancellation which we originally borrowed under the American credit arrangement and repaid in January this year. This sum now exceeds the latest estimate of our total liability. The amount paid in excess of the final settlement will be refunded by the American authorities. The payment made was of course charged to the Defence Budget. In the light of all the foregoing facts, the answer to the second part of the Question is, of course, "No".

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is it not clear that we shall have spent some £16 million without receiving any hardware? Is not this a lamentable waste of defence money?

Mr. Healey: I very much regret this waste of defence money, but when I compare it with £100 million wasted by the previous Government on 30 separate cancelled aerospace projects, I feel at least a certain relative superiority to the hon. Gentleman.

Service Doctors (Earnings)

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence by what percentage

the average earnings of general duty medical officers in the forces exceed the present average net earnings of general practitioners in the National Health Service.

Mr. Reynolds: The earnings of Service doctors vary according to rank and whether married or single. It is not possible to present a meaningful comparison by using averages. I will, however, with permission publish some sample figures relating to Service doctors in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As the hon. Member is aware, the pay of Service doctors is currently under review by the Prices and Incomes Board.

Mr. Goodhew: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was originally agreed that the pay of Service doctors should be 15 per cent. higher than that for National Health Service doctors to make up for their disrupted careers? Now that the latest award has been made to National Health Service doctors, is not the pay of Service doctors 34 per cent. behind instead of 15 per cent. in advance? What is the right hon. Gentleman to do to restore the shattered morale of this vital branch of the Services?

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman's statement was not quite correct. The analogy was not with National Health Service doctors as such, which is an expression covering a very wide range of doctors, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, but with general practitioners. As has been explained to the House on many occasions, it has only been in recent weeks that one has been able to measure the net effect on the salaries of general practitioners of the award of a couple of years ago. As I have said, the matter is now with the Prices and Incomes Board from which the Government will receive a report in due course.

Following are the figures:


TABLE


AVERAGE EARNINGS OF A SERVICE GENERAL DUTY MEDICAL OFFICER OVER A 32-YEAR CAREER RETIRING AS (ARMY RANK)



Married
Single



£
£


Colonel
3,624 p.a.
3,018 p.a.


Lt.-Colonel
3,490 p.a.
2,884 p.a.

The earnings include basic pay and ration allowance grossed for tax, plus marriage allowance in the case of married officers.

Armed Forces Pensioners (Increases)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the pensions of retired Servicemen will be increased and by what percentage.

Mr. Reynolds: If the Pensions Increase Bill becomes law in its present form, we would propose to give increases to Armed Forces pensioners to take effect from 1st April, 1969. With permission, I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL

SERVICE PENSIONS


The percentage increase taken depends upon the effective date of the Code and not upon the pensioner's date of retirement.


Officers


Code
Effective from
Normally covers Retirement
Percentage Increase


1950 and earlier.
1st September, 1950
…
On or before 31st December, 1955
18


1956
…
1st April, 1956
…
…
Between 1st January, 1956 and 31st January, 1960 inclusive.
17


1960
…
1st April, 1960
…
…
Between 1st February, 1960 and 31st January, 1962 inclusive.
13


1962
…
1st April, 1962
…
…
Between 1st February, 1962 and 31st January, 1964 inclusive.
11


1964
…
1st April, 1964
…
…
Between 1st February, 1964 and 31st January, 1966 inclusive.
8


1966
…
1st April, 1966
…
…
Between 1st February, 1966 and 31st January, 1968 inclusive.
4

Widows

So far as family pensions are concerned, all of which are either one-third of the husband's pension or the minimum flat rate where more favourable, the latter should attract the increase of 18 per cent., while the former should attract the percentage increase which would have been given to the husband had he been alive and aged 60.

Overseas Training (Regular Units)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many units in 1969 will be training overseas in the Middle East, in the Far East, other than Hong Kong, and in other areas, respectively; how they will be transported; how long the training period will last; and at what cost.

REPORT of how the escalator will apply to the Armed Forces pension Codes.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that existing pensioners who have been retired longest will get the greatest increase in pension, following the precedent set in the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned?

Mr. Reynolds: The percentages are exactly the same. When the hon. Gentleman receives the schedule later this afternoon, he will see the exact effects.

Mr. Reynolds: During 1969–70, of our Regular units stationed at home and abroad, 20 major and 30 minor units will train in the Near and Middle East; three major and 11 minor units in the Far East, excluding Hong Kong; and 35 major and 54 minor units in other areas, for periods from two to eight weeks. Transport will be mainly by R.A.F. Air Support Command aircraft and R.F.A.


Support Shipping. The cost will be in the region of £2·2 million.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these short training periods are enough to acclimatise troops to operations in theatres of war where the climatic conditions are very different from those of this country? Is he getting good value for money and should he not extend the periods of training overseas in both hot and cold climates?

Mr. Reynolds: These exercises are concerned more with gaining familiarity and experience and keeping up techniques rather than acclimatisation as such in the areas concerned.

Forces' Pay

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make an interim increase in forces' pay in advance of the completion of the review by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Reynolds: No, Sir. I cannot anticipate the Board's recommendation.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Last year, the Secretary of State said that it was essential that the Services should know that they would have fair increases at fair intervals. Why do the Government now leave Servicemen uncertain and with their pay falling further and further behind? Are they playing fair with the Services?

Mr. Reynolds: I cannot see that there is any uncertainty. The matter was referred to the Prices and Incomes Board on 30th May, last year, and the Government asked the Board to try to prepare its report within one year. That one year is not yet up.

Mr. Ramsden: May I now put to the right hon. Gentleman my earlier question? Is it not a fact that delaying an increase in Forces' pay at a time when comparable outside rates are rising is deliberately to depress the level of recruiting? Is not this scandalous at a time when the Army is so short of recruits?

Mr. Reynolds: There is no deliberate delay. As I have explained on 30th May last year, the Government asked

the Prices and Incomes Board to let us have a report on this matter within one year. That year is nowhere near up. From my own knowledge I am confident that the Board is working as fast as it can and that it will do a thorough job.

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence on what date new rates of pay were introduced and back-payments made to implement the increases in Forces' pay recommended for payment with effect from 1st April, 1968, by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in its First Report (No. 70).

Mr. Reynolds: Increases of pay and back payments were paid to officers by 31st July, 1968; they were paid or credited to a large proportion of other ranks by 30th June and to the remainder in July, 1968.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the transfer of responsibility for Forces' pay to the National Board for Prices and Incomes has resulted in the Forces falling further and further behind their civilian counterparts? Does the Minister now acknowledge that it was a great error to transfer it from the Grigg Committee in the first place?

Mr. Reynolds: I assumed that that would be the supplementary question, although it has little relevance to the question of back-payment. If the hon. Gentleman has any knowledge of any people who did not get back payment quickly, perhaps he will write to me about it, or wait for the report from the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Service Regulations (Prisoners)

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether a British Serviceman who becomes the captive of a foreign Power is still required by Service Regulations to state only his name, rank and number.

Mr. Reynolds: Under current instructions, a Serviceman who is captured is required to give only his name, rank, service number and date of birth.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the Government discuss with their allies the suggestion that in future Servicemen should be absolved from these restrictions


so that, when Communist propaganda is extracted under duress from any of our men who may have been taken prisoner, it will be known in advance to be nonsense?

Mr. Reynolds: I am willing to discuss this matter with any of our allies at any time, but it is nothing like as simple as the hon. and gallant Gentleman tends to make out.

Fishery Protection (North Sea)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for increasing the numbers of, and equipment for, the squadron for the protection of fishing vessels in the North Sea and in fishing grounds further north.

Dr. David Owen: There are no plans for adding to the six coastal minesweepers in the Fishery Protection Squadron, based at H.M.S. "Lochinvar". These regular patrols are supplemented from time to time by other ships. Nor do we plan to increase the number of distant water patrols carried out by frigates from the Western Fleet during the main fishing season. Equipment in all H.M. Ships employed on fishery protection duties is adequate for the task.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Under-Secretary realise that there should be plans to increase the protection of our vessels, that other Powers whose vessels poach in British fishing waters are protected by air and sea and that they greatly damage British fishing fleets and prospects? Will he take steps to see that protection vessels are increased in number and kind?

Dr. Owen: I see no possibility of increasing the time spent on fishery protection duties, which is already considerable and, I think, greatly appreciated.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Has the Department considered the use of helicopters in this respect?

Dr. Owen: We have considered helicopters and hovercraft, but at present we are satisfied that the existing ships provide adequate facilities.

Merchant Ships (Molestation)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence in how many cases, and where, British merchant ships

have been molested by foreign warships during the last 10 years; and what plans, he has for increasing the numbers of, and equipment for, naval vessels to provide further protection from foreign interference.

Dr. David Owen: Reported cases of molestation of British merchant shipping by foreign warships over the last 10 years have been very few but any questions of detail should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. We are constantly reviewing our measures for merchant shipping protection and we discuss the position regularly with the Shipping Defence Advisory Committee.

Mr. Hughes: However few incidents there are, does the Under-Secretary realise that molestation inflicts great damage on British fishing fleets? Would he take steps to see that British fleets are adequately protected?

Dr. Owen: If my hon. and learned Friend has in mind any particular cases, I should be grateful if he would let me have details and I will look into them.

Mr. Wall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since the dissolution of the specialised Fishery Protection Squadron there has been evidence to show that there is not sufficient protection for British fishing fleets?

Dr. Owen: I do not have that evidence, but if the hon. Gentleman can provide it I shall certainly consider it.

Germany (Infantry Battalions)

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what increases he now envisages in the number of infantry battalions to be stationed in Germany after 1970 above the number planned at the Defence Review in spring 1968.

Mr. Boyden: None, Sir.

Mr. Younger: If that is so, what conceivable sense does it make of the Secretary of State's recent remark that conventional forces in N.A.T.O. in Europe were at a dangerously low level? Can he not match his words with deeds by reprieving some of the regiments now being axed and get on with the job?

Mr. Boyden: The present infantry dispositions and plans for reinforcement are satisfactory.

Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has now considered what alternative rôle can be given to the 1st Battalion of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders so that it can be retained in the order of battle.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he now has for the employment of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.

Mr. Boyden: I regret that there is no practicable alternative role for this regiment.

Mr. Younger: Does not the Minister think that the regiment concerned has been extremely helpful and co-operative in suggesting these alternatives? Does he not think that he should pay some attention to the expressed wishes of a vast number of members of the public in a Petition having more than a million signatures to try to reprieve this regiment?

Mr. Boyden: All these proposals have been carefully considered, and none are satisfactory.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that there is great public feeling in Scotland about this matter? Does he realise that his policy in this matter, as in others, almost gives the impression that the Government have a vested interest in running down the morale of the Forces and the security of this country?

Mr. Boyden: Rubbish.

Mr. MacPherson: Will my hon. Friend make clear what the sponsors of the Petition have never made clear, namely, that they are demanding that the Argylls alone, among the whole British Army, be exempted from policies pursued by the previous Government and by this Government?

Mr. Boyden: A great many hon. Gentlemen opposite are making pure politics out of this issue.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Is the Minister aware that a great many people in Scotland deplore the threats to famous regiments which are damaging to recruiting and bad for Service morale.

Mr. Boyden: "Threats" is an absurd word to use. The Forces are to be run down. The basis for doing it is throughly fair for all parts of the United Kingdom. It has been considered with great impartiality and fairness.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that my regiment, the Highland Light Infantry, was disbanded by the Opposition when they were in government?

Mr. Boyden: When similar reductions were made there was very little cry from the Opposition, when they were in power, and the Press supported them.

Mr. Monro: Does the Minister mean that all the brains of the Ministry of Defence are unable to find a job for the best-recruited regiment in Scotland? Why is he killing off the goose which is laying all the golden eggs?

Mr. Boyden: It is not the best-recruited regiment in Scotland. As I said earlier, very fair consideration has been given to this matter.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that many of us regard this Petition with these million signatures with something like suspicion? Is he aware that I have in my hand a boast from a young girl of 14 who says that she has signed 15 different Petition forms? Is he aware that a great deal of the time of this House has been taken by counting and incurring a lot of expense on spurious Petitions?

Mr. Boyden: I am not always aware of what is going on in my hon. Friend's mind, but I am glad to know it on this occasion.

Mr. Younger: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Acklington R.A.F. Station, Northumberland

Mr. Will Owen: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether a decision has now been reached on an alternative use for the Royal Air Force Station at Acklington, Northumberland; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Reynolds: I am not yet in a position to say whether an alternative defence task for Acklington will be found

Mr. Owen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the closure of this excellent R.A.F. station is deplorable, especially as it is situated in a special development area? May I inquire whether it is possible to utilise the facilities there to meet the requirements of the forces being withdrawn from east of Suez.

Mr. Reynolds: I regret the closure of this station, because of the employment situation, but it is inevitable with the run-down in defence over the next few years. It was preferable, from a defence point of view, to any other closure in the United Kingdom. We are still looking at the possibility of an Army or any other Service use for the station. As I have explained to my hon. Friend, I hope to complete my investigation as soon as possible so that, if there is not such a use, other Departments will have an opportunity of considering it.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask why the decision fell on Acklington? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us from where the Air-Sea Rescue Service will operate as the Boulmer and one of the other lifeboat stations on the North-East Coast were not re-employed because we had such faith in the future of Acklington? The whole thing really is deplorable and disgraceful.

Mr. Reynolds: The Air-Sea Rescue unit will be moved in August to a nearby R.A.F. station and, in due course, to some other airport, military or civil, in that part of the United Kingdom. The service will be continued for as long as there is a military requirement for it, which is for as long as the foreseeable future.
The reason for the closure of this station, compared with others, was because, although £1 million worth of work had been done on it, it would require another £1 million worth of work to be done.

Defence Establishments (Land)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he gives, in deciding which one of any two home defence establishments may be scheduled for closure, to the relative value of the land which is to be

released for civilian development in the one or the other case.

Mr. Reynolds: Many factors are involved in planning the future of defence establishments. The value of the land at different establishments is taken into account wherever it is relevant.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why a junior Minister in another place last week flagrantly anticipated decisions to be announced tomorrow by saying that the move of a unit from my constituency to the south of England would save £1·2 million a year? Can the Minister tell us whether the cost of land that might have been released if the move were to be made in the opposite direction was taken into account?

Mr. Reynolds: I find it difficult to relate this to the cost of land. I do not know of any instance in the last couple of years or so where the cost of land has been the only factor involved in any such decision. There are usually many factors, of which the value of the land concerned is one.

Mr. Driberg: May we take it that the market value of the land will not be one of the factors taken into account when my right hon. Friend is considering the release of the land adjoining the Tate Gallery?

Mr. Reynolds: There are many factors, as in all cases. In this particular case there are many factors to be taken into account, one of which again is the value of the site, but it is only one of many factors.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Do the Government make a full economic appraisal involving other Departments than the Ministry of Defence in such cases, including the cost of grants, loans and development aid which may be needed by the replacement for employment in the area concerned?

Mr. Reynolds: Yes. Full calculations of that kind are made bringing in all the factors: the cost of social security benefits, capital cost per job, and providing alternative jobs. All these matters are looked into very closely by the Ministry of Defence and other Departments concerned.

Malaysia and Singapore (Air Defence)

Mr. Murton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions have been reached about the composition of the elements comprising the integrated air defence system covering Malaysia and Singapore after 1971.

Mr. Healey: These are primarily decisions for the countries which will be contributing forces to take. I hope it will be possible to announce further steps forward at the five-Power Conference in the summer.

Mr. Murton: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that British technical assistance will not be withdrawn for so long as it is needed in that area?

Mr. Healey: I have made it clear, in answer to an earlier Question, that we are prepared to provide assistance to the local governments in maintaining the radar installations, if required. Of course, the terms and conditions on which we provide it would be for negotiation.

Mr. Dance: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that we will have adequate air staging accommodation in the Gulf after 1971?

Mr. Healey: As I have mentioned before, we are planning to keep our existing air staging posts at Masirah and Gan. I have no doubt that the Government of Bahrain will be prepared to allow us to stage through Bahrain if we wish.

Persian Gulf

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now give details of the programme for the withdrawal of British forces from the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Healey: I have nothing to add to my replies to similar Questions on 18th December, 1968.—[Vol. 775, c. 1353–4.]

Mr. Ridsdale: If the local sheikdoms are not able to form a defence force of their own before the General Election, will the Secretary of State keep the option open so that we can review the position

then, in view of the importance of oil not only to ourselves but to N.A.T.O. as well?

Mr. Healey: Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I cannot see the relevance of the General Election here, since the policy followed by the Government elected at the General Election will be the same as that of the present Government.

Mr. Whitaker: Can the Secretary of State give us an assurance that British troops are nowhere subjected to racialist or other restrictions on religious grounds?

Mr. Healey: I suppose my hon. Friend is referring to the advice, not order, given to British Service men in the area, on which I think a Written Answer is being given this afternoon. My hon. Friend will no doubt be relieved to know that any embarrassment caused by such advice will cease to be inflicted on Her Majesty's Government after the end of 1971.

Mr. Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give our friends and allies in the Persian Gulf our assurance that after the General Election the new Government will give them support and will not be afraid to name them as friends and allies?

Mr. Healey: I hope very much that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be prepared, for the first time, to state clearly what sort of help he would propose to give these countries after the election. Every time we attempt to cost it the right hon. and learned Gentleman pretends that he does not really intend to give any help at all.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that when these soldiers are withdrawn from the Persian Gulf any property confiscated by the Arabs under the advice given by my right hon. Friend—not instructions, but advice—will be returned to these soldiers on their return to this country?

Mr. Healey: I think that my right hon. Friend has it slightly wrong. The soldiers will be advised to replace the labels on their undergarments if they so desire. The purpose of the advice is to ensure that the undergarments are not confiscated.

ISRAELI AIRLINER, ZURICH (ATTACK)

Mr. Speaker: Sir Barnett Janner, to raise a point of order.

Sir Burnett Janner: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to raise a point of order.
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for Her Majesty's Government to raise in the United Nations as a threat to world peace the attack on the Israeli aircraft at Zurich on 18th February, 1969, with a view to preventing further occurrences entailing danger to human life.
The object of my application relates to a specific matter. It is one which is well known now to hon. Members, namely, that an attack was made on an aeroplane at Zurich by murderers who intended to kill and who obviously were frustrated from killing passengers in an airliner.
The facts are that this was part of the plot which is well known, and has been acknowledged to be a plot by the perpetrators of the crime and their allies who are supported by Arab members of the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Member cannot debate in detail the merits of the subject of the application that he is making.

Sir B. Janner: I am trying to show how it is a specific matter relating to the United Nations, and bringing it within the purview of the House and its debates.
That this is an important matter nobody in the House can possibly deny, because it strikes at the very root of the safety of air travel by any nation in the world, including ourselves, and, in fact, would mean that for political purposes anyone could authorise people to attack planes, whatever they may be, and whatever nationality their passengers may be.
The matter is urgent in that the various Arab States have declared quite categorically that they are supporting the perpetrators of the crime, and consequently at any moment there may be a further

attack of a similar nature, and life is at stake. The United Nations is entitled to deal with this matter because this is a threat to world peace, and, therefore, in the circumstances, I ask for leave to have an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Leicester, North West (Sir B. Janner) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for Her Majesty's Government to raise in the United Nations as a threat to world peace the attack on the Israeli aircraft at Zurich on 18th February, 1969, with a view to preventing further occurrences entailing danger to human life.
The House knows that under the revised procedure of Standing Order No. 9 Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reason for his decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations which the hon. Member has made to me. I have to rule that the submission does not fall within the provision of the revised Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without in any way wishing to question your decision on this case, I must say that there arises here a matter of general principle which arose on one occasion when I tried to move the Adjournment of the House on a matter concerned with a different area of the world, the Far East.
My point is whether the House can ever, under this Standing Order, have an opportunity to influence the conduct of Her Majesty's Government either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly of the United Nations.
I am raising the question whether you could, at a suitable time either today or after consideration, give some guidance to the House on whether this Standing Order precludes the desire of the House on many serious occasions to influence the action of Her Majesty's Government while the issue is still under debate, and while the House is still in the position of being able to influence the Government in their conduct in the United Nations. Will it forever be impossible


to use this Standing Order for such a legitimate purpose?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) for putting the point so clearly. I must warn the House of its decision that Mr. Speaker must give no reasons and the importance of that decision. Once Mr. Speaker starts commenting on the reasons why he allows or does not allow a Standing Order No. 9 debate the House is beginning to go down the slippery slope to the position in which it found itself when it decided that the Rulings and precedents around Standing Order No. 9 were so detailed and binding that it had become almost impossible to get one. It is now possible to get a Standing Order No. 9 debate from time to time. I hope that the House will never ask me to give reasons for or against, or to comment on, my decision on a Standing Order No. 9 application.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 7th MARCH

The following hon. Members were chosen in the Ballot:

Mr Stan Newens.

Mr. Ben Whitaker.

Mr. Albert Murray.

CUSTOMARY HOLIDAYS

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend to all persons employed the right to enjoy the benefits of customary holidays.
The holidays referred to in the Motion are Christmas Day, Boxing Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, the spring Bank Holiday, the late summer Bank Holiday, New Year's Day, and the day following New Year's Day. The application of the holidays named is to England, Wales and Scotland. I shall later explain the proposal to extend the number of days beyond those enumerated in a similar Bill which I introduced in 1968.
I regret to say that that Measure in 1968 suffered the fate of so many others the life of which is ended by the machinery of Parliament which decrees that such legislation which does not secure the Royal Assent in any one Session thereby falls. Having introduced the present Bill rather earlier, I hope that it may be fortunate in passing all its stages in good time.
Perhaps I should tell those hon. Members not familiar with the main objects of the 1968 version of the Bill that the salient point is that, whereas most people have enjoyment of the holidays named or are otherwise compensated should they be called upon to work on those days, this enjoyment is not theirs of right but depends upon contract between employer and employee, and such agreement is always subject to revision. Since most workers are covered by collective bargains, wages council awards or individual agreements, the almost universal notion has arisen that the customary holidays have legal sanction.
In fact, this is not so. There are those who, having no protection either by trade union or by wages council are subject to the arbitrary decisions of their employer. My Bill, therefore, is aimed at giving statutory force to the customary holidays, making them mandatory on all employers.
It may be argued that simple membership of a trade union would give the necessary protection and ensure the benefit of agreements on holidays. That I accept, and I urge trade union membership on all workers. But one must accept


also that there are workers, for example, married women returning to work, particularly to clerical jobs, for whom trade union membership has no attraction and for whom the protection of Parliament is necessary.
So far, the Government have been content to allow agreement on holidays to be settled between employers and workers, even when an injustice is perpetrated. In reply to a Question arising from one such case put to him by me on 19th February, 1968, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the then Ministry of Labour refused the suggestion of statutory enforcement of customary holidays. I hope that there will now be a change of heart.
I think it right to reassure hon. Members who may be concerned at the possibility of a complete shutdown on the holidays mentioned. It is well appreciated that in such work as public utility services, sport and entertainment it will always be necessary for some workers to be on duty. However, there is no reason why such workers should not be compensated by time off in lieu or by additional payments.
The value of the occasional holiday is generally recognised, and from time to time hon. Members have sought to extend their number. Indeed, it has been a revelation to find that Britain is more niggardly than most countries in this respect.
The Bill which I wish to submit to the House contains a not-so-revolutionary proposal to add one more day to those generally accepted in England and Wales, that is, New Year's Day, and in Scotland, the day after New Year's Day. I respectfully submit that this proposal in no way infringes the Title of the Bill, since those days are almost universally taken anyway and they can justly be described

as customary holidays. Hon. Members who cast their minds back to the beginning of this year will recall the wholesale absenteeism on those days. This is a situation which one can understand on the day following a sometimes not too wisely celebrated turn of the year, when the faculties are not at their best and productivity is often at its lowest. I suggest that in most cases it would be an advantage economically to the employer to remain closed on that day.
It may be said that there is no apparent need for the Bill. I remind the House that there are those who, through the absence of statutory protection, are at disadvantage compared with their fellow workers. I can do no better than quote the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in reply to a debate on 12th February, 1960:
The more we can extend the universality of holidays, with pay, the more we shall all be pleased. It is essential for the well-being of people that they should get away from time to time and have a change of scenery and companions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 898.]
My Bill is about that universality, and I hope that it will be accepted on both sides of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arnold Shaw, Sir Barnett Janner, and Mr. John Ellis.

CUSTOMARY HOLIDAYS

Bill to extend to all persons employed the right to enjoy the benefits of customary holidays, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 25th April and to be printed. [Bill 89.]

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 18th February].

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

Clause 2

RESTRICTION OF RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE LORDS

3.48 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 40, after 'composed', insert 'only'.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): It may be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss, at the same time, the following four further Amendments:
No. 11, in page 2, line 41, leave out '(in this Act referred to as voting peers) and other Members'.
No. 12, in page 2, line 42, leave out 'and other members'.
No. 14, in page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
No. 16, in page 3, line 12, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Gourlay. All the Amendments are linked, and Amendment No. 10 without the others would make nonsense.
The purpose of the Amendment is to create a classless society within the narrow confines of the House of Lords. The effect would be to wipe out the absurd distinction between voting and non-voting peers. Perhaps it might be of advantage to the Committee if I were to show how the Clause would read if these Amendments were adopted:
In any Parliament summoned after the commencement of this Act, the House of Lord shall be composed only of members possessing full voting rights, and the voting peers shall consist only of those peers of first creation who are qualified as such under the provisions of this Act.
(2) In this section 'vote' means to give voice upon question put or take part in a division.

That, it seems to us, is simple, concise and unambiguous—all merits which should commend themselves to the Committee.
It is interesting to try to discover the origin of the idea of the two-tier system. It did not originate with British Railways nor with the G.P.O. nor, I might add, with the Parliamentary Labour Party. There was no package deal with this, it was never mooted upstairs in the several discussions which we had, nor was it in our party manifesto; we cannot say that we have a mandate for this proposition.
I am as anxious as anybody, and more anxious than some on the Government Front Bench, to make more effective the country's Parliamentary institutions, if I might paraphrase the last sentence of paragraph 18 of the White Paper. If that is the aim, the Bill seems to me and to many of my hon. Friends to be a bizarre contribution to that end.
To discover where the idea of a two-tier system began, we must look at paragraph 28 of the White Paper, where hardly the darkest hint is given of where it came from. Before that paragraph there occurs an explanation of the two principles on which reform must be based; first, the second Chamber must have some measure of independence; and secondly, a reformed House should be able to make an effective contribution to good democratic government. After the annunciation of these two principles, a non sequitur follows in paragraph 28:
The need to reconcile these two principles led to the suggestion of a 'two-tier' Scheme … 'voting' peers and 'non-voting' peers.
I ask my right hon. Friend, who attended so assiduously this morning, was this part of the agreed package deal between the two Front Benches? Did they both agree that there would be voting and non-voting peers? Was the bargain struck before the Rhodesian Order stopped the talks, or was this the idea of Lord Longford, or inspired by Mr. Henry Burrows, the former Clerk Assistant, on the lines of an article in The Times of 28th May, 1966? Wherever it came from, it is a thoroughly bad idea.
Let us see what will happen. The voting life peers, with a promise of regular attendance for one-third of the time, must be under 72, with the exception of


Cabinet Ministers. I do not know why they are exempt from this proposition. Some of them must have knowledge of the problems of the various regions and countries in the United Kingdom. There is then to be a group of hereditary peers who are made life peers, under the age of 72; all serving Law Lords of whatever age, all the bishops, with no attendance qualification—the black watch. These are to be, as paragraph 28 so elegantly puts it, the working House, the ersatz aristocratic workhouse.
Who are the non-voters in this political apartheid set-up, the supplementary benefit recipients? The part-timers, created peers, scientists, industrialists, trade union leaders, superannuated politicians, presumably drawing pensions, who come along have their say and then clear off, and other leading members of the community, whatever that might mean. Also among the non-voters would be the vestigial remains of the hereditary membership of the House of Lords. They are allowed to hang on "till death us do part".
It might be a good idea to have these various bodies differentiated by abbreviations, by lapel badges. A non-voting duke, for instance, might be N.V.D., and a voting duke would have V.D. The trade union leaders, some retired and, therefore, full-time workers in the House of Lords, could be described as V.P., T.U.R. There might be some trade union leaders who wished to attend for more than one third of the time, N.V.P., T.U., N.U.S., N.U.M., and so on; the superannuated politician, N.V.P., S.P. (72+); the industrialists, N.V.P., I.C.I.; N.V.P., N.C.B., and so on, and bishops V.P., C. of E.
The Labour Party stands for nothing if not for the destruction of the class system of society. "Class", to us, is a five-letter word, therefore 20 per cent. dirtier than the four-letter word we hear in barrack and university common rooms. It is a strange way to start eliminating class prejudice and class consciousness by erecting this Heath-Wilson contraption along the corridor. If we must have a second Chamber, and I am not convinced that we must, let them all be equal at least in voting rights.
It seems that a voteless peer will be as impotent as a castrated tomcat. He can howl on the noble tiles, but he cannot

deliver the goods. No army goes into action with blank ammunition. Men and women do not come to Parliament just to talk. Governments are influenced not so much by talk as by force which, in this context, means votes or the threat of votes. The threat of a vote after speech is the only way we have to influence the Executive, to compel the Executive to change direction.
We are now the only country in the world with a predominantly hereditary non-elected second Chamber, and if we allow this ramshackle edifice to be created we will then have the only second Chamber containing first and second-class Members. We might have two entrances, "Gentlemen" and "Players", as they used to have at Lords, or "Amateurs" and "Professionals". We are innovating here and there is no reason why we should not be behind the times.
4.0 p.m.
An interesting point was raised by a noble hereditary peer in another place on 19th November last. He said:
… there may be some great Constitutional point, but if you have a Peerage under patent it may not be correct to take away the powers of voting in this House which are granted in that patent. One Peerage which I hold in this House was granted under patent, but for my oldest Peerage "—
he evidently had two—
I have no patent. As far as I am aware it has just grown up through usage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th November, 1968; Vol. 297, c. 754.]
It sounded like a malignant growth. It would be interesting to discuss whether the Government have power to deny these people their vote.
I will not delay the Committee. I do not wish to emulate the example set yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I assure him that I want the Bill—but I will not tell him what I want to do with it.
This is the first time in the history of Parliament that a Government have sought to introduce by Statute a nonvoting type of Parliamentarian. This is, therefore, an extremely serious constitutional point. We can argue among ourselves whether or not we want a second Chamber, but those who want one will agree that its Members should have equal voting rights.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I hope that I will not set an undesirable precedent if I address the Committee for one minute. I hope, too, that I will not embarrass the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) when I tell him that I entirely agree with the Amendment and may find myself in the Lobby with him later.

This question of a two-tier system in the House of Lords—with first and second-class peers; voting and non-voting ones—was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) as a contradiction in terms, since "peer" means "equal" and thus to say that we will have peers who are unequal in respect of their right to vote is a nonsense.

The Government are proposing an undesirable innovation which should be resisted and I therefore have pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. Michael Foot: I, too, support the Amendment. This is an important debate for the reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) underlined. The Government are suggesting a novel feature in our constitutional arrangements and I therefore hope that the matter will be examined with care.
I would like at the outset to welcome a recently absent colleague to the debate. I am not referring to the Home Secretary, who has been here all the time—in the spirit and in the letter, but perhaps more in the spirit; I accept his word for that—but to the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). We are extremely glad to see him, because it had been suggested by some of us who have been following these matters closely in recent days that there was a decline in support for the White Paper proposals and the Bill on the part of the Opposition Front Bench. We are now feeling that the withdrawal of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) from the battlefield and the substitution of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West means that the Government will have somewhat more enthusiastic support.
As I said previously—and this is one occasion when this will be particularly useful for the Government—by far and away the strongest speech in support of the Bill was delivered—I do not mean

any reflection on the oratory of the Home Secretary—by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West in the debate on the White Paper. His speech on that occasion showed that he believed that this was a substantial reform and that he was fully in favour of it; and presumably he is here today to sustain that support through the rest of the Committee stage.
The Government will be interested if that occurs because they are in need of support. Since we have not had a full explanation from the Government about why we should have this two-tier voting system, I hope that an explanation will be supplied by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West. But I warn him that in his absence there has been a rebellion among hon. Members in the ranks behind him. I always thought that the right hon. Gentleman was the best candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party here. I thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite made fools of themselves when they did not select him on the last occasion. However, if he were to come out strongly today in favour of the two-tier system, I believe that he would have another rebellion on his hands.
The right hon. Gentleman is known to be a man of principle and I have no doubt that he would wish to stand by any bargain that he made. The whole question of such a bargain has been called in question in his absence. Many of the discussions we are bound to have on this and future Clauses will be affected by whether or not there has been a bargain and a package. I will return to this subject because it affects the reasons why there should or should not be a two-tier system.
First, however, a comment on the attitude of the Liberal Party to this matter. I mention this now because I note that a representative of the Liberal Party is in his place, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), and I hope that he will not evaporate before I reach my peroration. I would not like to make remarks in the absence of the whole of his party. I trust that he or a substitute will be available, because this is the first time during most of the discussion that we have had on the Bill that a representative of the Liberal Party has been in his place.
This is a matter on which the Liberal Party is vitally interested. I read the report of a remarkable speech delivered recently in another place by Lady Asquith. I cannot quote it in detail, but the hon and learned Member for Montgomery will be familiar with the scornful terms she used in referring to the proposed two-tier system. I hope, therefore, that we will have a contribution from the Liberal Party, particularly because in the absence of Liberal hon. Members we have had to make reflections on them behind their backs. I hope today that the hon. and learned Gentleman will enable me to make some reflections before his face.
Let us consider some aspects of the two-tier system. When a proposal is introduced for a two-tier system of voting—that we should have an assembly in which some people should have the vote and others should not—there is a strong onus on those who make the suggestion to explain why it should happen. It obviously gives rise to many anomalies. Indeed, I do not believe that any hon. Member who suggested that we should have a two-tier system in operation here would get far. Such a proposition would be thrown out. We would call it an insult that some hon. Members would have secondary status and would be able to attend and speak—that we would be gratified to listen to them but not take any account of what they say—but would not be able to stand up for their opinions in the Lobby. It is, therefore, an odd situation that we should be proposing to establish in another part of this building a system which we would not tolerate in our midst. That is why the onus is very much on the Government.
Part of the purpose—I appreciate that this does not always happen, and that many occasions may be quoted to me of when it has not happened—of debate here is that opinions should be swayed by what is said. It is a common assumption outside that that never occurs; that what is said here is all fore-ordained by the Whips and our procedures. But hon. Members who have been here for some time have become accustomed to the idea that we can be swayed by what is said. Perhaps the immediate effects of the debate are not immediately felt and are not even immediately reflected in the Lobby immediately after the debate. But

what is said may be felt in a subsequent vote or may affect a vote on a procedural matter.
An example of this occurred this morning. We saw how our discussion can affect the vote on the Closure Motion and even on the Motion to report Progress. These may be described as subsidiary procedural matters, but they are, nevertheless, important. They are particularly important in relation to the speed with which a Government can get a Measure or proceed with other legislation.
We will no doubt later be discussing the question of the delaying powers of the House of Lords. Perhaps on this occasion we are more interested in the delaying powers of the House of Commons, which may be more considerable than the Government estimated. We believe that it is necessary to preserve the delaying powers of this place while we remove the delaying powers of the other place.
4.15 p.m.
It is the question of voting which helps to decide the delaying powers with which we are concerned. It is part of the argument of whether the Government can be manoeuvred into a situation in which they might risk facing difficulty in the Lobby, and although that might rarely occur, it can affect the temper of debate. We are agreed about that and if that were not the case the House of Commons would be what certain people outside call it—a mere talking shop that does not matter. We know the value of our debates, because when it comes to a vote being taken at the close hon. Members are sometimes obliged to hold to their opinions and vote accordingly. It is, therefore, a matter of importance that we should now be proposing for another place an arrangement which we would not tolerate for ourselves, because it would injure the process of debate.
I will not enter into the question of the comparative standards of debate in the House of Commons compared with the House of Lords. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) that exaggerated tributes are sometimes paid to the speeches made in another place. That does not enter into the matter now.
If, in another place, some peers have voting rights—the "Preamble peers", as we have called them—while others do


not, who can say that that will not have an effect on their standard of debate? Will it be thought that non-voting peers cannot make useful contributions because less weight must be attached to their opinions, since they cannot substantiate them when a vote is taken?
Apart from the question whether or not a large number of people can have their opinions changed as a result of debate, the whole atmosphere of any debate must be altered by the sort of arrangement that is proposed. We do not know exactly how many non-voting peers there will be. I understand that there is no limit on their number. This is not an intelligent way of conducting debate. Hon. Members who argue that we must preserve what is best in the House of Lords will not be preserving it, partly because it is proposed to establish a totally different kind of animal to the one that now exists. They will be devising a debating assembly such as no one has even previously conceived, in which the arguments will be addressed only to a minority of the people and in which a lesser status is given to some persons.
I am not at all surprised at the attitude of Lady Asquith, in her distinguished speech in another place, which every hon. Member who is to vote on this matter should study. She is in favour of some of the proposals, although not as enthusiastic as some hon. Members of the Liberal Party in this place, but she condemns this proposal with the invective of which she is a mistress. If we were to pass this proposal, it would be one which has been condemned even by some of those who support the general arrangement behind the Bill.
But there is a more serious aspect. Why have the Government, with the assistance of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West and the others who engaged in the package or "bargain"—we can use that word now that the right hon. Member for Barnet, who did not like it, is nursing his sensibilities elsewhere—embarked on such an extraordinary arrangement? Why have they had to devise for our new second Chamber a system which no constitution-monger in history has ever devised before? Why is something absolutely novel proposed? That is what we must vote about when my hon. Friend and I press this matter to a Division.
I am glad to see the Leader of the Opposition. He has come in at exactly the right moment, because he was a party to the bargain and he exercises some of the patronage under this arrangement. Of course, it is part of the bargain. They had to invent a two-tier system to get the accommodation. If we decided to do away with the two-tier system, we would have to solve the subsequent dilemma in one of two ways.
If the power is given to appoint peers, there would be an objection to many of those who will still be there, among all the hereditary peers, the bishops and the rest of the hangovers. If they all then vote, we would be back almost where we are now and the whole exercise might just as well not have been started. So, the arrangement had to be made palatable to this side, in one sense. I do not suppose that hon. Gentlemen opposite objected very much: they would have been prepared to give the vote to the whole lot, but they will speak for themselves.
The right hon. Member for Enfield, West is here to give us the official view on the question and how far it entered into the bargain and whether he proposed it before the Rhodesia vote or after. All these matters, which we could not extract from the right hon. Member for Barnet, he has come here this afternoon to tell us about, and we are very grateful to him.
It is not only on this side of the Committee that this applies. I can assure the right hon. Member for Barnet, who has now returned—I am only bringing him up-to-date with what has gone before—that there is far more interest on that side of the House about the nature of the bargain than even on this side, and on this side our curiosity has been at least whetted. But no one will deny it—I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary nodding, which shows that he agrees with what I am saying—

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan) indicated dissent.

Mr. Foot: I am told that I missed him this morning, although I tried to keep my eyes glued to him, and I see him jump in and out. I do not want him to become invisible again, but I thought that he was


nodding when I said that the voting system was part of the bargain. I do not think that he would deny that, because when they sat down to devise it I presume that our bargainers—to use that ugly word—were saying, "We are ready to get rid of the hereditary peers and probably the bishops". Or did we propose to keep the bishops?
But whatever may have been the bargain, at some point it seems to have been said from that side, "We want to keep about 40C or 500 of these chaps", and, on our side, they said, "We are prepared to keep 200 on a nominated basis", and a bargain had to be struck between the two. To make the bargain palatable, the two-tier arrangement had to be invented.
If I am wrong about that, I should like someone who was present at the discussions to correct me. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was not present. He was less innocently engaged at the Treasury at the time. Wherever he was, he was not in these negotiations. But we have here today someone who started off objecting to the Bill but who, during the course of the discussions, became converted to it and who is new its leading champion—the right hon. Member for Enfield, West.
The right hon. Member has said that he listened to all the discussions and was persuaded that this was the right course for him. My suggestion to him on this Clause is that one of the things which converted him and one of the reasons why he felt that he could look his friends in the House of Lords in the eye—Lord Salisbury and others—was precisely because he could say, "Look at this triumph that I have brought you, this two-tier system, which means that you can all stay where you are and end your days there". He was greatly maligned on that occasion, so I hope that he will tell us clearly what happened over the bargain.
I see no reason why the right hon. Member should not explain this to the House. There is nothing dishonourable about it. Somehow, we are landed with this proposition and we want to know how it arose. I want to know what happened and what was the quid pro quo which was given. I do not expect the whole affair to be unravelled and laid on the Table. I expect no such elaborate arrangement, but I do expect that we

should be told whether the Conservative Opposition regard this two-tier system as essential to the whole arrangement, and whether they are backing it because they knew that this was the only way in which the bargain could be made between the two sides. The House of Commons and the country are entitled to have it, particularly because there have been these attacks, quite rightly made from so many quarters, on this Measure.
Finally, I come to the position of the Liberal Party in these discussions. I have said that we want to hear from the Liberals in this debate as well. We want to know whether they agree with the views expressed by Lady Asquith in the House of Lords or not. I do not like using harsh words about the Liberals, but in these debates they have not reached that high moral plateau to which they usually aspire in their perorations.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: And which the hon. Gentleman himself always achieves, of course.

Mr. Foot: If one is going to try to get there, it is a very good thing to achieve it.
I am coming to the Liberals' attitude. Before we proceed, we want to know their attitude to the Bill and, particularly, to the Clause. Someone has said that the Liberals have not treated this matter with the highest possible respect. In my opinion, it resembles somewhat the attitude of the Great Powers to the partition of Poland. No one is surprised at the attitude of the Front Benches, just as no one was surprised that Russia and Prussia should join together to dismember Poland, but that little Austria, Maria Therése, should join the plunder, despite having said beforehand how they wished to avoid it, was really surprising.
When the Empress of Austria joined in the partition of Poland, it was said, by Voltaire or somebody, "Elle pleut, mais elle prend." "She weeps, but she takes." That is roughly the attitude of the Liberals to this matter. They dislike it, they hold up their hands in horror, but they are taking part in the plunder. Therefore, the Leader of the Liberal Party will be able to add to his famous impressions one of the Empress Maria Therése, weeping over the wounds of Poland but incorporating them into the Liberal domain.
They see in this the biggest access of strength that the Liberal Party has had for years. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, knowing his long and venomous hostility towards the Liberal Party, should have agreed to a bargain of that nature. It must have been most appetising to his own party for him to have agreed to a bargain which, as a side wind, was so beneficial to the Liberals. Therefore, the more we look at this package, the more extraordinary it becomes.
I said at the beginning of my speech, when the Leader of the Opposition was absent, that I thought that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), was the man for his job. I prefer to insult people to their face, so I say it again to him now so that he shall not convict me of any lack of honesty. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West, who has been deep in these negotiations, must think that there is a great advantage for his party if he is prepared to agree to the ludicrous two-tier system of voting, which must stick in his constitutional gullet. If he is prepared to agree to a system which gives these advantages to the Liberals and has caused such uproar on his benches throughout the debate, he must see a real advantage that it is absolutely essential for the Tory to grab. He is a realist. He wants to get the Bill through because he knows that Conservative power can be conserved like that. That is why some of us are bitterly opposed to it.
Some romantic Tories look at these matters in a less calculated way than the right hon. Gentleman, and we appeal to them to vote for our Amendment. If they do, we will go very far to ensuring that the Bill is killed. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said this morning that he thought that I was guilty of dissembling in one respect, because I said that I would like to improve the Bill, and that my real aim was to kill it. Of course, I would prefer to kill it. There is no concealment about that. I think that we are well on the way to success. The Opposition have had to rally the forces of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West to sustain the weakening nerve of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), which is evidence of the success of our campaign. We have

the Conservative Party more deeply divided than it has been on any issue except race, but we do not get any thanks for it.
I say to my right hon. Friend that there is no dissembling. We want to kill the Bill, but we do our duty in seeing whether it is possible to remove some of the absurdities from it. I agree that he can argue that if we remove this absurdity we help to destroy the Bill. That is pretty well his case. It is the case, and it is condemnation of the Bill.
Are we, then, to let such an absurd system go through? Some harsh things have been said about Members of another place during these debates, but are we to insult them by saying that we shall send them a system of voting that we should not tolerate for ourselves? Of course not. So let us all vote for our Amendment, which will destroy the package. If we send it in this altered form to another place we might start a little revolt there, and by one means or another we might thus kill the Bill. We may have to say it a hundred times, and, of course, also with our votes, which is the most effective way to do it, but the Government will learn. It is by votes in the end that one impresses and decides and that is why we should not arrange an assembly in which some Members may vote and some may not.
There were great constitutional fights to ensure that how Members voted should be published, and they went on for 200 years. That was one of the major constitutional fights. Now we are to have a system in which part of the Legislature will have nobody in it knowing whether to vote or not, with some not being allowed to vote. That is a ludicrous proposal, and if the Government will not withdraw it, which we hope they will, let us help to defeat it in the Lobby. That will expose some of the absurdities in the Bill.
The debate on the Clause, like the previous one, shows that the more we argue the more we expose the deficiencies and contradictions in the Bill. So great are they, and so absurd are the confusions, that they have now penetrated right into the centre of the Front Bench opposite, which, despite the present appearance of utter passivity is torn by bitter feuds as to how the Opposition are to proceed,


one right hon. Member saying that they have been betrayed, others saying that they must stand by the bargain, and others saying that they never made a bargain. Their confusion is exposed by our efforts. We shall see how they proceed, whether, as the Home Secretary said, as he is entitled to do, they stand by their bargain and will go through to the bitter end supporting the absurdities which were all glued together in this ridiculous package.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Like the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), I am delighted to see so many of my right hon. Friends on our Front Bench, and I was also delighted with the hon. Gentleman's excellent speech. I am sure that for the Liberal Party it will become compulsory reading, with the great speech of Lady Asquith in another place.
The Committee has had assurances that there was no bargain between the two Front Benches. Now is the time for our Front Bench to make it clear that there was no bargain. This is a very happy opportunity.
I do not know who devised the idea of the two-tier vote. It is treating the other place in a rather tribal fashion to say that there are those who are worthy of the vote and those who are not. I can only think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) whom, as a very great Colonial Secretary, I tried to serve, may have been thinking of their old Colonial idea of Exco and Legco, members of Exco who speak and vote and members of Legco who speak and do nothing. There is something gravely tribal in the proposals, which I hope that we shall defeat.
Far more serious, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said, is the level of debate that the Upper House will now have. I shall not join the hon. Gentleman in discussing whether the quality of debate is better here or there. But, as he pointed out, the quality of debate there is bound to fall and will inevitably lead to irresponsible speeches by those who do not have to follow their speech by a vote.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, is leaving

us. I hope that he will return for the vote which will come quite soon.
The Upper House will fall into desuetude, and will be filled with those on the payroll of one of the major parties. As for the Liberals, they hope for greater things as they fall apart as a political party in the country. Perhaps they will be rewarded by those in office.
The proposal is thoroughly bad and shocks everyone on this side of the Committee. It destroys the dignity of Parliament, and should be rejected, as I hope that it will be on the Amendment.

Mr. Brian Walden: This is a very bad Bill, and it is difficult to say which part is worst. If I had to choose, I think that I would pick this Clause.
The House should not disregard the fact that what is proposed is an almost unique constitutional arrangement. I cannot think of any developed country in which this absurd system exists; it has previously existed only as a theory. The right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) reminded us earlier of the unfortunate Abbé Sieyes, who devised a system, as one of his many constitutions for the French, in which some could speak but could not vote, and some could vote but could not speak. Previously, only gentlemen of that ilk, whose greatest claim in respect of the French revolution, I understand, was not that he managed to affect it or mitigate it, but survived it, suggested that this could be done. No rational assembly has been foolish enough to enact it. I do not know of any Parliamentary body in the Western world that has this form.
Not only is it wrong on those grounds, but I regard it as a betrayal of some of the most fundamental things the Labour Party has always believed in and should believe in. I have never heard it suggested by anybody in the Labour Party, until now, that we would find proper a legislative body with differentiated membership of this kind, with the "ins" and the "outs", the privileged and the less-privileged.
The only suggestion that I have ever heard that is even faintly analogous to it is that which I heard 20 years ago from the Conservatives about the value of weighted voting. There used to be an argument that the trouble with


democracy was that not everyone's vote was as good as everyone else's, as could be detected from simple tests of intelligence and worth, and that scales should be arranged so that people could vote according to their position on that scale.
There is an American gentleman who will be well-known to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). He is Mr. H. L. Hunt, a Texas oil millionaire and an extreme Gold-waterite, who has written a book saying that one should have votes in proportion to the amount of income tax one pays. But even this was for the voting public and not a legislature.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Does the hon. Gentleman's objection to weighting voting extend to the system of block votes wielded by trade unions at the Labour Party conference?

Mr. Walden: I have never liked the block voting system. I regard it as a rather mythical system, because the votes cast are not those of active members of the Labour Party. But they have some kind of existence in that they are registered as paying a levy.
I only mentioned Mr. Hunt because that was the only analogy I could think of, and even that did not relate to legislatures.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale on one thing. I did not think that he was sufficiently charitable in welcoming my old boss, the Home Secretary, who is here to deal with the matter. My hon. Friend forgot that my right hon. Friend drew the black spot for this. When the cards were dished out last night he drew the unfortunate job of having to speak on this odious Bill. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was delighted to lose on that occasion, and we should welcome the Home Secretary to our discussions. He has lost the assistance of the three wise men who were sitting on the Front Bench opposite until a moment ago, who have the most fundamental disagreements among themselves.
I am waiting earnestly on this Clause or any other to have a whole series of things resolved for me either by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) or the right hon. Member

for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). For instance, I wish to know whether they have come into concert now on whether the powers we shall give to the wretched other place will be used frequently or infrequently, or not at all. It appears to be a matter of disagreement as to whether or not the bargain was made, as to whether the disagreements were about time or extended further. No doubt they have all gone away with the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) as umpire to decide what they will tell us on the important other Clauses.
I look forward to that because this has become a bipartisan debate. I see no signs that the resentment against this wretched Measure is any less on the other side of the Committee than it is on this. The only bench on which, apparently, the proposals receive unequivocal support, is the now "heavily populated" Liberal bench.

Mr. Hooson: If that is so, will the hon. Gentleman explain why the majority of the Parliamentary Liberal Party voted against them?

Mr. Walden: I thought that one of the most fervent speeches made in its favour—indeed, almost wholly in its favour—was that made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party. We all know that the Liberals especially dislike—rightly so—the view that the right hon. Gentleman, when he speaks, does not speak with the full concurrence and understanding of his party.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: We have a free vote.

Mr. Walden: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) tells me that the Liberals have a free vote. If the Liberal Party has a free vote on this Measure, I welcome them to the club, because all other sections of the Committee have a free vote on the Measure, whatever it says on the Government Whip.
We have been told that the Opposition have a free vote. So we can all join together. I am sure that the hon. Member for Orpington, as he is now a free and independent man over the age of 21 and eligible to sit in the House of Commons, will listen with care to some remarks I shall make later about Gladstone and his views about having assemblies in which


some people could sit but could not vote, because that very distinguished Parliamentarian once wrestled with that very issue and had some comments to make on it.

Mr. Hooson: Do we take it from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he fervently supports what his own party Leader—the Prime Minister—said on this issue?

Mr. Walden: No, I do not support what my right hon. Friend says on this question. Indeed, I want to put it on record that I have seldom heard a speech recommending a constitutional measure of this significance so bereft of argument for its merits and so removed in all that it said from the actualities of the case. There was constant repetition of the word "modernisation" to describe this farce which is the very reverse of modernisation. The hon. and learned Gentleman need have no fears. I shall come to that point later.
I pass from this idea of weighted voting and return to the point that there is no precedent for expecting an assembly of this kind, whether it be a Lower or Upper House, to work well. It is a fairly safe prediction. It is an almost unanimous prediction in the House of Commons that such an assembly will not work well. Hon. Members know that it will not work well. Indeed, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale made possibly the most important of all points when he said in one of our previous debates, but it happens to be very relevant to this discussion, that the whole exercise was to try to legislate into existence an impossibility, namely an independent House containing people of varied experience and independence of mind who, nevertheless, on all the issues that matter will support the Government of the day My hon. Friend said that that is an absurdity. He said that it was all very well for the Abbé Sieyes to speak about this, but in life it cannot be done. My hon. Friend was absolutely right.
This attempt to weight the voting is, in part, an attempt to do that. It is an attempt to take away the vote from gentlemen who will be allowed to sit where they have always been allowed to sit and who are known overwhelmingly to have one political persuasion and to

give votes to gentlemen who, having been appointed by the two Front Benches, will vote in accordance with the apportionment, which presumably—and almost certainly if the Bill comes into operation during the lifetime of this Parliament—will be in the proportion of 60 to 40 or two to one on the Government side. So, all these splendid and independent-minded technologists and Swansea scientists can be relied upon to cast their votes for the Government. They will be independent, but they will be "safe" from the Executive's point of view.
That is an absurd exercise. It is a prescription for producing a second Chamber which is bereft of dignity and which will be bereft of sensible discussion. It will have the kind of discussions which I know even from my short experience here are especially resented in the House of Commons—discussions which do not come from experience and which do not relate to the practicalities and problems of life but which are highly theoretical and fanciful. It will be a payroll vote at the end. No one supposes that it will work.
Does anybody want it? First, there is no doubt as to why any set of executives—whether they be on the Government Front Bench and, therefore, anxious for an easy legislative passage or whether they be on the Opposition Front Bench and, therefore, hoping soon to become the Government—want this. When has the Executive ever wanted a virile, independent, probing legislature? When has it ever valued independence of mind? Admittedly, we say these things. The Executive says them as much as anyone else. When there is a quarrel in the party, the Executive says that nothing gives it greater pleasure; it likes a virile party full of independent-minded men with stiff backbones who will get up and argue for what they believe in; let the quarrels continue, it says; they are a sign of strength; what the Executive wants is more. But backstairs it puts on every single ounce of pressure that it can to shut the participants up and restore a "phoney" unity.
4.45 p.m.
I do not blame Executives for thinking like that. I have never been a member of the Executive. If I were to become one, I can well imagine that that would be my view. I would not want to be irritated by


a lot of what I am sure I would regard as unnecessary and not wholly well-informed arguments, quarrels and disputes thrust upon me by obstreperous legislators who, instead of concerning themselves with what my hon. Friend described as the waterworks Bill and such constituency matters, were for ever rising and asking things about the economy or about constitutional issues or other things which they should shut up about and leave to those who know better.
The Exective naturally thinks that it is a splendid idea to have a two-tier voting system, bearing in mind those who will be allowed to vote. Who will be allowed the vote—peers of first creation, my hon. Friend's seraglio of eunuchs. Those are the people who will cast their votes—those who have been appointed by the two Front Benches. One does not have to suggest, and I do not suggest, anything in the least corrupt or even unworthy in the way the appointments are made. All that I say is that men who will be appointed to serve a legislative function will have been appointed, not by legislators, but by executives. The view taken in the House of Commons as to what is and what is not a good legislator would vary greatly according to whether a back bench Member or a Front Bench Member were asked his opinion.
I recoil from the idea of a chamber of legislators appointed by executives. I do not believe that it will produce this famed independence of mind. When I am told some of the categories who are to be brought in, when I hear the Prime Minister himself expound his ideas of who should form the membership, and when I see enshrined in his remarks that all-pervasive modern heresy that it is not good enough to be a politician, I wonder how close to reality some of my right hon. Friends are.
Apparently the concept is that it is not good enough to have studied politics and government and to care about issues. The essential thing is to be a scientist or a technologist or a man who has, in that deathless phrase, a working knowledge of industry. When I hear that these political innocents are to be sent up to the House of Lords by the Government and Opposition Front Benches, and when I am asked to believe that these people will exercise a refined, independent

political judgment on important issues, I wonder how far from reality we can all get in discussing this matter.
As a very junior and minor practitioner of the art, I have at least the wit to realise what politics is about and, I hope, the wit to appreciate great politicians, of whom there are a considerable number in the House of Commons. I do not believe that a man practised in the running of industry can be translated to the second Chamber and be expected to exercise the sort of judgment that comes from half a lifetime of experience in a legislative assembly like this.
I give my warning, for what it is worth, that I personally have the greatest reservations about seeing this done. I think that it will turn out to be a disaster, and a disaster which will bring laughter, contempt and humiliation on us all.
That is not all. I understood from the Leader of the Liberal Party that, with certain reservations of no great significance, he broadly supported the aims of the Bill. It is a pity he is not here to say how much he supports the two-tier voting pattern.
At the time when, rightly and courageously, Mr. Gladstone decided that Ireland should be conceded Home Rule, an argument sprang up as to what should be the status of Irish Members. There seemed to be two possibilities. The first was to have a Parliament in Dublin but whose Members would also sit here in the imperial Parliament. The second was that the Irish would be totally excluded from this House and would sit in a separate Parliament in Dublin. What would politics be without its "wheelers and dealers", its "fixers", its "easy men who can find an easy answer", as President Roosevelt called them?
One of Mr. Gladstone's associates came up with what he thought would be the perfect way of damping down the campaign which Lord Randolph Churchill was showing incipient signs of developing. He suggested, "Why not a separate Parliament in Dublin where they can have their own Prime Minister and Executive, subject to certain restrictions on finance and defence, and their own votes, but also have them in our Chamber here except that they will not be given votes? They could come and speak and put their


constituency problems but would not be allowed to vote."
Mr. Gladstone is reported to have said, "That idea, Sir, is a nonsense and the House of Commons would never listen to it." Perhaps later he could have been persuaded to change his mind. I only point out that the instinctive reaction of the man who, in my view, was the greatest Parliamentarian who has ever sat in this Chamber was repugnance at the idea of having a group of Members present who could participate in discussion but whose votes could not follow their voices—and this attitude was the right one because it is the very hallmark of dilettantism, and would accentuate all sorts of unfortunate characteristics of our system, both here and in another place, that men should be able to talk in a way they later do not have to sustain with their vote. That seems to be very wrong. Many abuses which have happened will continue and will happen in an exaggerated way if we set up the sort of structure proposed.
I never thought that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West shone better than when he cast his vote against the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1968. He and I took a minority view. But his vote was worth a thousand articles and a dozen speeches. He recorded himself for ever as being against that Measure. From what motive? It could not have assisted him. But he believed in his opposition to it and had the courage and principle not only to say so, but to vote accordingly.
Whatever my disagreements about the value of the hereditary principle and of the nature of the law as it stands, I would not deny that the other place includes many people who are like that, but do not let us take the vote from those who might exercise it in that way whilst making sure that we give it to people whom we are certain will not exercise it that way. That would be a nonsense.
I was astonished that, moving the Second Reading, the Prime Minister seriously brought himself to say that there will be peers in another place who will not vote either in the Chamber or in Committee, but who, nevertheless, will, in every other way, be able to participate in all the most important activities of the House. Quite obviously, the Prime Minister was not being ironical. Plainly, to him, the

mere fact of tramping through the Lobbies, as I am sure it is regarded in Executive circles, seems to be a minor function; and that there is much more important work that an industrious man can do quite apart from the recording of a mere vote.
I do not blame my right hon. Friend for thinking like that. But that is the danger of allowing legislators to be selected by executives—necessarily executives—who think that a great deal that legislators do is mere air, mere gassing, mere demonstrating, and too ill-informed to impress and that legislators make a stand where none is needed. The executives find great deficiencies in them as Parliamentarians. What better reason, therefore, for not allowing the executives to determine the composition of any part of our parliamentary structure?
I have never been more sure that the Government are wrong and will regret the step they are taking. I doubt whether, having gone through the business, we can rapidly unscramble it. Once we have it, we shall be stuck with it and we shall have switched upon us the extraordinary argument which has been used to sustain this Clause and the Bill—that the people do not care, that the average man outside has no interest in what the Lords is like—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] Of course it is true—so that the Government say, "Let us fix it up as we choose in arrangement with the Opposition Front Bench".
But if we want to change the system back, we shall get the argument switched back—"There is no interest in any change in the country. How wrong it is that legislators in the House of Commons should wish to take up a complex issue like this when there is no public demand for it to be handled at all".
I am sure that we are doing the wrong thing and that we shall regret it. Having done it and recorded it, I am far from sure that we shall be able to change it. This is quite apart from my doubts as to whether the Conservative Party, if it returns to power, will wish to change it, for I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), Lord Butler and the right hon. Member for Enfield, West that this is a very good deal for the Tory Party. They will


do very well out of this. They will cloak with respectability and with the operation of power something which I think has very largely become an irrelevance to the life of the country—valuable in its revising functions, but not a significant power centre. Do not be sure, however, that the House of Lords will not become a significant power centre. I fear that it will become one as a result of what we are doing. When weeping with regret, do not let us be too sure that we can ever change it again.
If the Liberals had had a majority after the First World War, they would have seen how wrong they were not to do what Mr. Asquith considered doing before the war—swamping the Lords completely. If they had done that then, there would have been no Irish troubles after the war. The Irish would have got their Home Rule at once. If the Liberals had had a majority in this House after the war, no doubt they would have decided to do something about the Preamble to the Parliament Act, 1911.
However, the Liberals did not get back after the First World War and we have been stuck with the thing in that form ever since. But, bad though it is, I still prefer it to this abortion which is being foisted on us. I am sure that this is a mistake, that we shall regret it. I say to the Government that, even if they beat us now and do not listen to our representations on the Floor of the Chamber, having not listened to representations upstairs in private meetings, they will saddle us with a system that they themselves will not like, which will be a matter of derision and which will operate not only against the progressive clause but against the independence and fibre and value of our public life.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I hope that the Committee will heed the clear warning by the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) that when we destroy a traditional and prescriptive part of our Constitution we cannot then, if we repent us, subsequently go back to square one and be in a position to think afresh whether there may not be some preferable alternative. If we destroy now we destroy

for once for all, but that does not mean that we shall like or remain enamoured of whatever we put in its place.
I hope that I do not embarrass him by saying so, but I think that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has done a service by his Amendment, which has pinpointed the monstrosity of the two-tier system enshrined in Clause 2. There have been a number of references to such a constitutional scheme as being typical of the Abbé Sieyès. One may hope for this particular scheme, and indeed predict for it, that at any rate it will not be able to make eventually the same claim as the Reverend Abbé—namely, to have survived.
Anyone listening to the debate so far could not fail to be impressed by the abhorrence felt on both sides for such a constitutional absurdity as a deliberative and legislative Assembly part of the Members of which can speak but cannot take part in the decisions.
It is easy to imagine that such an Assembly can be assisted by persons who may speak and not vote. It used to be a custom of this House—but no longer is, although we do it in Committees—to summon witnesses to the Bar to assist us with their advice; and it is perfectly rational to do so. It used to be the rule also in the other place that the judges were obliged to go there and give their opinions on points of law at the summons of that House; but, of course, they had no vote.
But there is an essential difference between witnesses, assessors or technical advisers and an integral member of an assembly; for the essence of a deliberative and legislative assembly—an assembly out of whose deliberations decision is going to come—that those who speak, those who give counsel, should participate in the ultimate outcome.
I know that in the present House of Lords it often happens that noble Lords who have special knowledge or special interest in a subject which only occasionally arises may be glad to come from time to time and speak and then go away—and it may be valuable if they do so. I know, too, that very often when the Administration has been badly mauled in debate in another place, nevertheless


those who have won the argument withdraw the Motion calling for papers, although they have sometimes been known by accident or otherwise, to carry it.
But this does not alter the fact that an entire difference would come over the complexion of an institution where it was a foregone conclusion that, although one had spoken, however persuasively one spoke, one could not mark one's opinion by taking part in the ultimate decision. I find it difficult to imagine that there would be many worthwhile contributors to debates in the new Chamber of nominees if those who were going to contribute were told beforehand: "You will be listened to; but whatever your feelings, whatever the force of your argument may be, whatever the balance in the Chamber may be, you will take no part in the decision."
We all know, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) pointed out very well, that the fact that our vote must follow our voice is a tremendous discipline. It gives a responsibility which nothing else can give to one who speaks in an assembly, that when the bells ring he has to go one way or the other, or at any rate be seen of his own violition not going one way or the other. It is essentially an irresponsible Member of a deliberative assemby who would, by definition, be unable to follow up, to mark and to support by voting what he had said. In short, I believe it will be a disgrace to this Chamber, of which the vital essence is that in the last resort—whatever may be the differences between us—we are a body corporate, to call into existence of our own volition such an abortion as a two-tier chamber would be.
There is something obscene about the House of Commons, of all places in the world, summoning such a chamber as is implied in Clause 2 into existence. It is so extraordinary that we should be debating it at all that it is very natural for hon. Members to have asked: "How do we come to be faced with such a paradoxical, absurd proposition?" I do not think that the debate so far has fully exhausted the explanations for our being confronted with this proposal. There is more than one reason at work.
One is the bargain between two sides. The second tier, the non-voting survivors,

the non-voting retired, the non-voting "less-often-comers", these were all a sweetener to the pill for the existing members of another place. Undoubtedly, together with the possibility of existing hereditary peers continuing to sit for the rest of their lifetime, this part of the package made it easier to secure agreement in another place. I apprehend that, but for this two-tier system and the part of Clause 1 relevant to it, the balance of the voting in another place in November would have been very different from what it was.
I cannot, within the rules of order, be offensive, either individually or collectively, to members of another place; but I wish to say that no member of another place, nor another place collectively, has the right to sell out valuable elements of our constitution for the sake of advantages which they may hope personally to enjoy during their lifetime. The British Constitution is not the personal property of any particular generation of members of either House of Parliament. We who sit here are not in possession of the fee simple of the House of Commons, so that if sufficient inducement were offered to us we might agree to barter it away, to dispose of it in job lots, perhaps.
Similarly, the other place, the House of Lords, the prescriptive Chamber, is not the possession and private property of any noble Lord or any group of noble Lords now living. Good or bad, it is the possession of the nation. It is something which they did not create, which they do not own, and it has values which, once destroyed, cannot be re-created.
One of the most offensive things about this bargain, a fact which was unpleasantly revealed by the balance of the voting in another place, is the extent to which opinion in another place has been swayed already—perhaps a foretaste of things to come—by the personal advantages, the personal immunity, the continuance of personal privilege anticipated by the present occupants of places in the House of Lords.
It is, they might be saying, if the expression were sufficiently dignified, "O.K. for them". As long as it is "O.K." for them, they are prepared to swallow the consequences for the future and the inherent absurdities and obscenities of


the scheme. Après moi le déluge—it is a good, aristocratic rule. Over and over again, it has been the common people, the people represented in this House, who have shown the truest appreciation and valuation of the prescriptive parts of our Constitution. That reason which I believe has been at work in our being presented with this absurdity is one which this Committee ought to dismiss with contempt.
The second cause is the absolute obsession of the Government and the framers of this scheme with the conundrum of contriving a second Chamber which can be both subordinate and independent. Having got a scheme which, ignoring all the practicalities, would apparently give the Government an assured majority, except for the occasional accident or exception, they realise that all this would be overturned and swallowed up by a package deal which allowed the survival of so large a number of Members who are not nominees, who were not—in the charming old-world phrase expressed in the Preamble—"adherent to either party". The word "adhere" means "stick". So it means: "who would not stick by the Whip". So in order to preserve this precious, unrealistic scheme of a dependent-independent nominated chamber, they had to silence, they had to keep out of the arithmetic, all those whose acquiescence they had nevertheless had to purchase by retaining them still as members. Thus the pursuit of an absurdity by the Executive has married with an unhealthy complacence, a bought complacence, on the part of another place. For myself, I intend to mark what I feel about this by following the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) into his Lobby.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know whether that last sentence of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) exhilarates or depresses my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). I fear that he may be a little depressed, but it is an interesting reflection for anyone who sits on the Government Front Bench, I do not know about the Opposition Front Bench, that we have these two completely opposed groups of views.
On the one hand, there are those who believe that this is a great conspiracy by the Conservative Party, who have sucked the innocent and naive members of the Government Front Bench into betraying the Revolution, and we are now to have a much stronger House of Lords. This view was expressed, in perhaps not quite such colourful language, by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All-Saints (Mr. Walden). On the other hand, there is a group on the other side who seem to feel that the Opposition Front Bench has sold out to the sharks in the Socialist Government, who are now to take full advantage of the situation to prevent the House of Lords from carrying out its constitutional responsibilities.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman is half right.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman was always a moderate. I do not think that he would go all the way with his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. All of this certainly makes standing here exhilarating. Although I said that the debates yesterday and, to some extent this morning, were irrelevant, no one could ever claim that they were uninteresting. I find it fascinating to study it. Perhaps I might now be allowed to say exactly what this Clause does, and what the Amendment would do if it were carried.
Subsection (1) provides for the division of the reformed House into voting peers and other peers. The former will consist exclusively of peers of first creation, who have not passed the age of retirement and are willing to accept the obligations of a voting membership. This is an important consideration which has not been brought out in the debate so far. They would have to accept the obligations of voting membership. This entails a certain minimum number of attendances if they are to qualify as voting members. Then there are the existing members of the House who are peers by succession and who do not become voting peers through the grant of a life peerage.
What is the basic purpose? I agree with those critics who say that no one would ever dream up a scheme like this if it did not exist already. We are dealing with a House of Lords which does


exist, a House of Lords which is irresponsible, which is hereditary in its position and which, in its powers, is quite arbitrary. That is the situation from which we start. We are not starting from a situation in which a developing country considers whether it creates a second Chamber. If we were, I certainly would not be standing here discussing a scheme of this sort. We are discussing whether, in attempting to make this arbitrarily selected body more sensible, we should be phasing-out the attendance of those who have had a prescriptive right to attend at the moment.

Mr. Michael Foot: Was it not stated by another speaker from the Front Bench that the question of two-tier voting is not only concerned with the phasing-out of the hereditary peers but it is also proposed as a permanent system for some of the peers?

Mr. Callaghan: That is so. I said so a few sentences ago when I said that any member of the new House of Lords who was created would have to qualify, so that, permanently, there would be a situation in which a certain number of peers will never become voting peers, although they will have the right to attend and speak. There are a great many citizens who will welcome that opportunity and will feel it is worth doing this.
I want to focus on what has been basically the opposition—the hereditary peers. I want to make their position quite clear. The position would be that, as from the date on which the Bill becomes law, the hereditary peers, who are already sitting in the Lords, will either be translated into created peers and then have the right to vote, if they undertake the obligations, or they will remain as they are, without the right to vote. As those peers by succession die, they will not be replaced by other peers by succession.
The first point, speaking from my point of view, in favour of this proposal is that we shall lessen immediately and drastically the number of hereditary peers who have the right to vote and, over a period of time, no new hereditary peers will attend the House of Lords.
It is possible to make fun of all these constitutional changes. I could make as many mocking speeches as have been made from both sides of the Chamber—I may have made them in the past. But

I ask my hon. Friends—I do not ask Members of the Opposition—is that not an advantage? Is it not an advantage from the point of view of the Labour Government—I will come to the question of the bargain later—to cut out the hereditary basis, all members who are due to vote or eligible to vote in the House of Lords? In my history of the Labour Party, we would have said "Yes" gladly and cheerfully and, "Thank God, this is a great advantage." That is what part of this proposal does.
Let me translate the matter into figures. At the moment, there are 736 hereditary peers by succession of all parties, not peers by creation. In a House of the size discussed between the Liberal Party. Conservative Party and ourselves—that is, a House of about 230, although one cannot be exact about the size—that 736 would possibly be reduced to 77. I say "possibly" because it can only be an estimate. It depends how many are created from succession. However, I make a fair estimate that it would be about 77. Is not that worth while from our point of view? We reduce the 736 hereditary peers to 77 at a blow.
I do not expect that to appeal to the right hon. Members for Wolverhampton, South-West and Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), but I expect it to appeal to my hon. Friends. It appeals to them, as the votes show as we go steadily through the Bill, because it is of great value.

Mr. Ridley: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to do away with the entire hereditary peerage element, why does he not simply vote for the Amendment?

Mr. Callaghan: I will come to that. I have been asked a question about a bargain. I do not think that it would be proper for me to go into detail about the discussions which took place. The general outline has been presented to hon. Members and it has not been denied.
I refer those, including my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West who have asked me about a bargain to paragraph 3 of the White Paper, which states:
The Inter-Party Conference had by that time "—
that is, by the time of the Lords rejection of the Southern Rhodesia Order—
reached agreement on the main outlines of a comprehensive scheme for reform, covering


both the powers and the composition of the House of Lords, and much constructive work had also been done on the details of its implementation".
I must rest on that. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale wants to carry me beyond that, I can only tell him that, having discussed this scheme on the basis set out in paragraph 3 of the White Paper, despite my hon. Friend's siren voice, I do not think that I could walk into the Lobby with him.
If it is felt important for those hereditary peers who are not created as peers, so that they become voting peers if they wish, to remain in the Upper House and to speak, we are not by adopting a scheme like this standing in the way of the main reform. The main reform is to get rid of the hereditary peerage and also to get a majority for the Government of the day—a luxury which a Labour Government has never had. It is not for me to argue whether this is a good or bad bargain from the Opposition's point of view. From my point of view—and I am sorry that I do not have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale—it is worth while going on with this, although I understand that there are nonsenses about it and that if we were devising something entirely new I do not know that I would come forward with a scheme of this sort. But if the scheme is broadly acceptable, why should I demur from it if we achieve the main consideration—the abolition of the hereditary peerage and a majority for the Government of the day?

Mr. R. T. Paget: Surely my right hon. Friend does not get a majority for the Government of the day. The balance of power lies with the cross-benchers.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. and learned Friend is strictly correct, but he will know—[Interruption.] I am trying to debate this matter fairly. The right hon. Gentleman might try to control his guffaws. The cross-benches tend to break both ways pretty evenly. There is no phalanx of cross-benchers. I hold the view, and I repeat it, that if there was a phalanx of cross-benchers wholly voting against the Government, this scheme could not survive.

Mr. Michael Foot: My right hon. Friend is dealing fairly with the matter, but I should like to press him further about the alleged bargain. We have not had any enlightenment from the benches opposite about it and I am not sure whether we shall get it. My right hon. Friend fairly says that he thinks that some of these proposals are nonsence. We wish to know whether this piece of nonsense was inserted under pressure from the Opposition. We hope that we shall be enlightened on that point before the end of the debate. We wish to know whether this was part of the bargain. If we are to have the chance of changing it, the question of whether it was a central feature of the package or was merely on the periphery of the package makes a difference.

Mr. Callaghan: It would not be right for me to indicate which of the three sides put forward which proposition. I think that my hon. Friend can deduce from my attitude that there are parts about which I am less enthusiastic than others. But, knowing the deep respect in which both Front Benches are held, it would be improper for me to enter into a competition of indicating which I thought were the best parts and which bits were put forward, which bits they put forward or even which bits the Liberals put forward. I must allow my hon. Friend, with his well-known powers of inductive thinking, to deduce which parts attracted us and which parts attracted them.

Mr. William Hamilton: My right hon. Friend cannot go as far as my hon. Friend is suggesting, but could be at least indicate whether there were any people in the inter-party talks who were cross-benchers?

Mr. Callaghan: The inter-party talks were made up of the Government Front Bench, the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Party under the chairmanship of Lord Gardiner. It was that which was reported to the House at the time, and it was that—I do not think that I am being unfair in saying this—which broadly produced the scheme which found its way into the White Paper. I am saying no more than the White Paper.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman has explained that the figure


of 77 was an estimate. Can he give us a bit more enlightenment as to how he arrived at that figure?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, I think I can. The number of peers is set out in the famous table of page 5 of the White Paper. In a House of 230, which was the size discussed, we reckoned—and I think that there was pretty general agreement on this arithmetic—that we would need to create 24 Labour peers who are already there by succession. I hope that I am right; I am answering off the cuff. A vast number of Conservatives are there by succession—274. It was reckoned that it would be necessary to convert about 42 of them, who would become created peers. If the scheme were brought into force now, there would be seven Liberals. If it is not brought into force until after the next election, and if the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) is right and the Liberals suffer losses—[Interruption.] I am offering no opinion; I am merely saying if this were so—there would not be seven Liberal peers to be created. There would be four cross-benchers. That is how I arrive at the figure of 77 peers who would become peers by creation, having been peers of succession, out of the 736 of all parties who are there now. Of those 736, as the table shows, over 400 do not take any party Whip and a large number do not attend. So all that dead wood will be cut out and I am in favour of cutting out dead wood. There are, therefore, real advantages from the Government's point of view in a scheme of this sort.

[Dr. A. D. D. BROUGHTON in the Chair]

5.30 p.m.

I could understand it if I had to argue the case against the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West or the other right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale—this applies also to my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints—does not give enough credit for the modernising aspect of this in the sense of cutting out dead wood, reducing the hereditary element and, in the broad sense, giving the Government of the day a majority—

Mr. Angus Maude: Is the right hon. Gentleman so sure that the bargain which he is recommending

to his hon. Friends is as good as he thinks it is? Is it not true that, having had a second Chamber, although, admittedly, with a majority of the Opposition, which never dared to use its powers to any significant extent, he is going to get one instead which will use its powers, and possibly against him?

Mr. Callaghan: That is a Second Reading point. We debated this at great length on Second Reading and I have no doubt that we shall debate it again. But that does not arise out of what I am saying, except that I do not think that he is right. I disagree with the hon. Member.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I am sure that the whole House has been intrigued by the figure of 77. Have these people been approached? Have some of these miserable nobles in another place been bribed? May we have the list? Perhaps the Front Bench can tell us who they are, whether they are paid men by the Government or the Opposition. This is most interesting.

Mr. Callaghan: I resent this attack on the morals of Conservative peers—

Mr. Michael Foot: I know them.

Mr. Callaghan: I would not want to comment on that, but I am bound to assume that they are honourable men, all honourable men.
Also, of course, it would not be for the Government to approach them, because, as is well recognised, the system will continue under which the Opposition would nominate their own people. So it would not be proper for me to say whether anyone has been approached, except that I am sure—[Interruption.] I can give a complete answer about that: no one has been approached on that. But I would not want to comment on what arrangements are made on the other side of the House.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Mr. Hugh Fraser rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to get me into trouble with his own Front Bench, but it looks as though he is trying to use me as a pawn against his own Front Bench—

Mr. Hugh Fraser: It is just that this is such a serious matter that I wondered whether the House should not set up a


committee of inquiry to investigate bribery and corruption on a major scale.

Mr. Callaghan: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to put down that Motion, I am sure that it will be treated with all seriousness by his own Front Bench and mine. But I beg him not to tempt me into indiscretions as far as his own Front Bench is concerned. I have enough troubles with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale without getting into any more difficulties.
I think that I have said enough. I do not accept the view of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest that there is abhorrence in all parts of the Committee. As so often, he claims too much. Whenever he goes into the Lobby on this issue, he gets 40 or 50 votes. That is the measure of the abhorrence—[AN HON. MEMBER: "That is because of the payroll."] But there are 250 members of the Opposition and how many votes does he get from them—30 or 40? Again, I am treading in very deep waters. I want to clear out and get back to the shore as quickly as possible.
I say to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and to my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints, whose speech I greatly enjoyed, as I did those of my hon. Friends the Members for Ebbw Vale and Fife, West—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Don't miss anyone out.

Mr. Callaghan: I am trying to get the Bill through.
The only complaint that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale has is not that we do not listen—we do listen—but that he always loses. When it went to the party meeting, we won; when we had a second debate at the party meeting, we won; at the third debate at the party meeting my hon. Friend was so overcome by the Government's case that he could not even make a speech on it: He did not even rise to speak, although invited to do so. The complaint of my hon. Friends is not that we do not listen but that they do not win.
This must be put to the test. My hon. Friend the Member for All Saints has told us his view about the sanctity of the Whips. He did not say it, I notice, in the presence of the Chief Whip and

I will not encourage him to say it again: I have too high an opinion of him. We had better put this to the test in the Lobbies, and see whether, warts and all, this scheme, which is a transitional scheme—

Mr. Powell: No, it is not.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, I will amplify that. This scheme is transitional in respect of every peer by succession there at present, namely some 700 members, the overwhelming proportion of the House of Lords. It is a transitional scheme in respect of them. Let us see whether, warts and all, the phasing out of these gentlemen, who have given most distinguished service to the discussion of our affairs, is not a better way of doing it than cutting them off rudely as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale would do.
It is on those grounds that I invite the Committee to reject the Amendment and to support the Government in their all-wise proposals.

Mr. Hooson: I am glad to be able to speak before the touching concern expressed from various parts of the Committee for the welfare of my party is forgotten. No one divides the Labour Party more effectively than the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It is his presence below the Gangway which has effectively prevented the union of the Left: I imagine that that is why the Prime Minister has left him there. But today he went further and indulged in one of his favourite pastimes of also dividing the Conservative Party, upon which I congratulate him. He did so very effectively. But not content with that, he went further and sought to divide the Liberal Party on this issue—

Sir A. V. Harvey: How can he? There is only one of them here.

Mr. Hooson: That is true, but one Liberal Member is worth so many more Tories that only one is necessary.
The hon. Member sought to divide the Liberal Party on this issue. He need not have bothered. I disagree with my leader as much on this matter as he disagrees with his and as much as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton,


South-West (Mr. Powell) disagrees with his Front Bench. I would not attempt to justify a two-tier voting system. I agree that it is nonsense. I do not think that any justification has been put forward for it today. The Home Secretary sought to explain this, but he gave no justification for it.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) in his quoting Gladstone's immediate reaction to the proposal that Irish Members should be allowed to be Members of the House and to speak but not vote. His Parliamentary instinct immediately told him that this was not on.
This whole Bill is repugnant to me. I would like to make my opposition clear. I completely oppose the Bill. It is a compromise between the two Front Benches—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Three.

Mr. Hooson: No, we believe in equality on this Bench. I understand that my leader was consulted, but no one else in the party. I am certain, however, that the majority in the Liberal Party are opposed to the Bill.

The Temporary Chairman (Dr. A. D. D. Broughton): Order. We are not discussing the Bill as a whole but only a particular Amendment.

Mr. Hooson: I am answering matters already debated on this Amendment. Surely I have the right to answer points which have been made and allowed. I believe that the majority of Members are against the Bill for a variety of reasons.
The hon. Member for All Saints said that he was in favour of a voting system whereby people who make speeches should sustain them with their votes. The truth is that people who make speeches here do not always sustain those speeches with their votes, any more than hon. Members below the Gangway sustained their speeches on the Prices and Incomes Bill with their votes.
I want to make it clear that I do not view this as an important constitutional issue. The instinct of the country is absolutely right. There is complete indifference to this issue in the country.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale makes great speeches. If we are to judge

from the length of the speeches in HANSARD, this is one of the most important issues that has come before us for many years. But it is not. The power of the House of Lords was broken in 1911. Since that time the House of Lords has slowly been on the way out. This is another step in the process.
I am not in favour of a second Chamber. The House of Lords undoubtedly has a refining quality on legislation, but that could be performed adequately by an extension of the Committee system. However, we are not debating that matter. We are considering whether we should have a second Chamber and whether we should divide it in the way suggested—a two-tier voting system. I have not heard a single argument in its favour today, save that it is obviously a compromise, and clearly a compromise that the Government would have insisted upon.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is so naïve as to think that it was the Opposition Front Bench that insisted on this compromise, because, clearly, a Labour Government are at a disadvantage in the other place compared with a Conservative Government, and it is in their interest to insist that they can virtually control the vote.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not wish to be pedantic, but twice the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to a two-tier voting system. There is only a one-tier voting system. There is only one group of votes.

Mr. Hooson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I meant a two-tier system of membership with voting and non-voting peers.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale seemed particularly concerned—I gather it is almost his chief objection to the proposed reform—that it might result in an accretion of Liberal peers in the other House. With two of his own distinguished brothers as members of that House I could not follow his objection. Nor could I, despite their membership, follow his analogy of comparing the House of Lords with Poland. I was quite unable to follow that.
Despite the hon. Gentleman's rather offensive remarks about my party, I,


and I think most Members of my party, agree with the criticism made by Lady Asquith in another place on this matter. I shall support the Amendment in the Lobby.

Mr. Paget: I did not find my right hon. Friend's opposition to the Amendment very solid. As I understood it, he justified the Bill and this arrangement, broadly speaking, by the argument that it provided the Government with an obedient second Chamber. Obedience may be a good quality, but it is surely not the first quality to be looked for in a legislative Chamber. If we want obedience, why have a second Chamber at all? If we have a biddable second Chamber, why bother to bid it? I should think that my right hon. Friend's argument came down in favour of an Amendment which would in practice abolish a second Chamber and take powers against it.
To accept office, whether as a persuader or as a voter within a Chamber whose purpose was to take orders, does not seem a position which any honourable man could take. In this matter I feel that my right hon. Friend has done less than justice to the scheme which has been put forward. I think that the scheme may be presented in a rather different way and there may be a case against an Amendment confining the House to voting peers.
After all, if we have a set-up of 100 peers appointed to vote for the Government—and having accepted that appointment they can hardly honourably do anything else—and 85 peers appointed to vote for the Opposition—and, again, they could hardly honourably do anything else in the circumstances—we are left with 85 peers—[Interruption.] That surely defeats my right hon. Friend's argument. His argument surely was that he had been very clever to get an arrangement which gave the Government control of the other House. If he looks at biddability he has not got control. He cannot have it both ways.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: Why not?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is what the right hon. Gentleman always hopes.

Mr. Paget: My right hon. Friend may try, but I think that he will find that he cannot have it both ways.
We come down to the 85 neutral peers whom I might almost describe as the jury. If the other place is to work on a kind of jury system, immediately there arise the most attractive opportunities for the persuaders—far more attractive than speaking in this Chamber where the Whips decide the vote, not the people being addressed.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Not any more.

Mr. Paget: Not any more. The important way to make this work is how we pick our jury. It is like the problem which is often met, and takes a long time, in American courts. It seems to me that the whole basis of the arrangement, and the justification for it, depends upon having this neutral political castrati with the completely blank minds of jurymen to accept an argument advanced by those who are in the House simply as persuaders.
I was about to suggest how we might reach this conclusion. We need a committee to pick these neutral people. I suggest that that committee might consist of the following people: the Moderator of the Free Church Council, the President of the Secular Society, the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, the Secretary of the Communist Party, the Senior Steward of the Jockey Club, the General Secretary of the T.U.C., the President of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, the President of the League against Cruel Sports, and perhaps the Chief Rabbi, I suggest that the conditions should be that all appointments are unanimous.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I have an Amendment down to this effect, but I have added a psychiatrist and a bishop of the Church in Wales. I suggest that they should certify that a person had no political views and would never be likely to have any.

Mr. Paget: This might be an initial stage. We might have this certification before the names go foward. A man who could not collect a black ball out of that lot would have remarkable and exceptional qualifications in neutrality. He would be the sort of man who would


provide that beautiful blank sheet upon which the persuaders, the people who are in the House just to speak, could exercise their functions. Surely at this point my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) will see the error of his Amendment. It is the persuaders who are wanted here because power rests with the blanks.

Mr. Walden: My hon. and learned Friend referred to the analogy of the American courts. Is not the right way to achieve this desirable, neutered committee to get a body of men and ask, "Have you ever heard of Harold Wilson or Edward Heath?", and nobody gets in if he has?

Mr. Paget: If someone has not heard of Harold Wilson or Edward Heath, and if he, in turn, is not known by any of the members of the committee that I have suggested he might just about do for the job.

Earl of Dalkeith: As this is the first occasion on which I have had an opportunity to take part in the debate on this subject in Committee, it might be appropriate if I were to declare an interest as a potential victim, or perhaps potentially in the category of the castrated torn cat about which the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) talked earlier.
I am as enthusiastic as anybody for change, provided that change is for the good. After listening to numerous speeches of really outstanding quality this afternoon, and especially to Government speeches, I very much doubt whether this change will be for the good or for the better.
I was particularly impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) who, as we remember, at one time held the hand of the Home Secretary, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, during his arduous years in that post. I thought that his speech would have made an impression on anybody.
I regret the fashion nowadays to have change simply for change's sake. I sometimes wonder whether this is all just a matter of the Government pandering to the angry young men on their Left-wing, though perhaps some of them are not all that young. I began to wonder this

afternoon whether, if that was the idea, they were achieving their purpose. I suspect that when the Government produced the Bill they thought that it was perhaps something which would keep the Left-wing happy.
I find it most interesting to see how the opposite ends of the political spectrum have been brought together by having a common point—an equal mistrust on the part of the Left and of the Right of their own leaders. They all seem to wonder whether they have taken leave of their senses. The Left thinks that the Government have sold out to us. Some of us suspect that our side has sold out to the Left. But this afternoon we have had an elaborate explanation from the right hon. Gentleman explaining it away to his own Left-wing, in terms which arouse my anxieties very considerably.
I thought that even the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was beginning to look quite pacified and contented, and this worried me all the more. I hope that our Front Bench will give us an equal opportunity to feel reassured and to believe that we are not being sold down the drain.
Let us try to see what the Left wing's attitude to the Bill is in terms of the Amendment. It seems that so far their antagonism has been largely due to the fact that they suspect that the whole Bill is a Conservative plot, and on the Amendment they are rather contradictory on this line. I think that the main argument which has been advanced so far against the hereditary system is that hereditary peers tend automatically to be Conservatives, and, therefore, they must be abolished.
In this context, I have often been accused of spying Communists behind every bush, but this is nothing to the visionary powers of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, or those of the hon. Member for Fife, West, in spying Tories under every bed, and this has been the basis of the attack upon the hereditary principle.
Those on the Left wing are in a difficult position over this. They have this love-hate attitude to hereditary peers. They hate them to the extent that they would like to abolish the lot, but, at the same time, the hereditary peers are their favourite windmill against which they


love to tilt. They are therefore anxious through the Amendment, to try to maintain the voting rights of hereditary peers so that they can continue this little pastime.
What I suspect they do not realise is that if this Amendment were carried it would knock the whole of the two-tier system for a six, and ensure a Conservative majority, which is the one thing the Government are seeking to abolish. The only way in which the Government could counteract that would be to create a large number of life peers through the medium of the Prime Minister's patronage, which is the one thing hon. Members on both sides have been complaining about more than about any other.
I suspect that only the most starry-eyed optimist would believe that the other House would be a better place if we were to replace the products of the bedtime stories as recounted by the hon. Member for Fife, West with old cronies of the Prime Minister. If anybody really thinks that that will improve things, he ought to think again.
I believe that we should be able, if we can, through the Amendment, but I do not think it is possible, to keep some element of the hereditary peerage going. The Home Secretary will no doubt say that this will be done by means of the 77 about which he told us.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Who are they?

Earl of Dalkeith: We would like to know who they are—the 77 hereditary peers who would become life peers. This will no doubt keep them going for a little longer, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell) so rightly said, they will be the beneficiaries of a very attractive situation. I shall not seek to suggest that anyone is casting doubts on their honour, but they will be put in a very favourable position, because they will be in a reformed House of Lords which will probably have more power and more teeth than the present House of Lords. They will be the recipients of largesse.
I question, as, indeed, did my right hon. Friend, whether it is right for them to sell the pass as far as others who come later are concerned, and I add my own phrase in that context, "I'm in the boat,

Jack. Shove off", as opposed to Après moi le deluge, an expression which, I am sure the Home Secretary remembers, as we were sailors at the same time, a phrase which we heard fairly frequently in the Navy.
I doubt whether the Amendment will achieve what the hon. Member for Fife, West hopes to achieve. It will produce exactly the opposite result to what he has in mind, and I should not be altogether happy to support it.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Before my noble Friend finishes, could he tell us something about the 77 Tory peers. Will he press our Front Bench to reveal the names? Otherwise, there should be an inquiry into the suggestion of political corruption. Who are these men who will take bribes?

Earl of Dalkeith: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend thinks that I have divine powers as a persuader to extract answers, but I should like my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to give us some sort of reassuring answer such as that given by the Home Secretary to the Left wing of his own party.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The argument we heard earlier that the House of Lords is on its way out was adequately dealt with by other contributions, not least by that of the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith), who rightly pointed out that the Bill will give more power to the House of Lords, which is what I cannot accept.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Before the hon. Gentleman gets going, will he give us an idea of the number of hours he will speak?

Mr. Sheldon: I can put the Committee's mind at rest. I do not intend to speak at length this afternoon, though I should make no apology for so doing.
Most assemblies throughout the democratic world have certain safeguards which protect their constitution, whether by entrenched clauses, by large majorities required to make changes, or the like. We in this Parliament do not have safeguards of that kind. The only safeguard we have is the right to speak our mind


in this House. It is, therefore, all the more important that, in the absence of other safeguards, we are allowed to put the case adequately, compensating for what otherwise might be regarded as a deficiency in our Constitution. I should, therefore, make no apology, though on this occasion I do not think it right to speak at great length, as so many of the arguments have already been put.

The Amendment would create one kind of peer only, so that we should not have those who speak and listen as well as those who speak, listen and vote. The arguments were well put by my hon. Friends the Members for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden). Here, I take up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regarding the actual numbers in the House of Lords. He regards it as an advantage that there will be a reduction in the number of hereditary peers. He spoke of a reduction of 77, and this he regards as of some advantage in reducing the number of successionist peers in the House of Lords able to vote.

Mr. Callaghan: Not a reduction of 77. I spoke of a reduction of roughly 670, that is, a reduction of those entitled to vote.

Mr. Sheldon: Yes, that is right. However, because of the need to make new creations to bring in more peers of the kind required, there would be a gain in total numbers of peers eligible to go to the House of Lords. There would be all those peers who might apply for the writ, plus the new creations needed to produce the balance which is the basis of both the White Paper and the Bill. Therefore, the reduction is only a reduction of voting peers, not of numbers going to the House of Lords.
Let us consider the obvious problems which will arise. The "Preamble" peers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale called them, can speak effectively only to those who will vote. It frequently happens in the other House that the attendance is not large. There may from time to time be a House consisting solely of Preamble peers. The debates on such occasions would be unreal because there would be nobody present to be influenced, and no HANSARD report

could come out in time to do the influencing.
How long will the successionist peers remain in the House of Lords? Obviously, my right hon. Friend believes that their number will decline with time as their age increases and they retire from public life. It will take a very long time. In the light of their average age, it is obvious that, in 20 years from now, there will be several hundred such peers cluttering up the benches of the House of Lords.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Even when the great day arrives and there are no more successionist peers in the other place, there will have been a great influx by then of over-72s. This will be a permanent arrangement. There will be all those over-72s, with nothing else to do—with the expectation of life as long as it is likely to be in those tremendous days—coming to the Chamber and boring all the Preamble peers to tears.

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. and learned Gentleman has reduced my speech by the few moments which he took. That is precisely the point which I was about to make. I entirely agree.
Now, the question of the cross-benchers. My right hon. Friend said that, if they abused their power, they would have to be dealt with. That is an extraordinary statement. In view of the agonies which preceded the agreement, the bargain, or whatever we call it which has led to our being here today, utterly disgruntled and dissatisfied, no one could readily accept that we should have to drag the matter up again in this House and ask for further powers. Of course not. There would have to be an appalling constitutional crisis before we went through this wretched business again in the next 10 or 15 years.
What we are doing will rest largely on the assumption that the cross-bench peers, when they obtain real power—a power of arbitration for which, I think, many of us would willingly exchange what power we have—will act in the same way as when they have no power, when they have just their academic background and are happy to produce the academic arguments which are the result of so much of their activity at present.


But we all know that any human being—or any animal—given the opportunity to exercise real power undergoes a fundamental change.
It will happen to their cross-bench Lordships as soon as they have the bit between their teeth and realise what they have. They will use their power. It is no use imagining that we can put the situation right by coming back with a further Measure to change things yet again. The state of affairs at that stage will be in the interest of one party or the other, and that party will be reluctant to change. Without agreement, change will be very difficult.
Both our Front Benches are feeling very insecure now, insecure because they see the danger of the humiliation of having to withdraw from the bargain. But I urge them not to think of it in that way. A change of mind may seem humiliation to a person who tries to be strong, but it is no humiliation to forgo some of the bitter trials which lie ahead, if not here, at least in the other place when the Bill finally reaches that place. We need to understand that the balance of advantage between the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench in withdrawing from this Measure cannot be known exactly in advance, but if they were both to withdraw from it it may well be that the advantage to both would be considerable.
This whole question, as we know, stems from the fact that the Labour Government were not to be denied their last year of office. They were frightened that the legislation which they might wish to put through in their last year might be blocked, and they wanted considered, quite rightly—there is absolute rectitude here—that there was no reason why a Conservative Administration should have five years of office and a Labour Administration four years of office, so they tried to reach an agreement. What they should have done was to go forward with a simple Measure to remove the delaying power of the House of Lords.
Yesterday, there was presented the Parliament (No. 3) Bill, which is just such a simple legislative device to remove the delaying power of the House of Lords after the first three years. In the first three years, the House of Lords would have their delaying powers, so they

would not be rendered completely inactive. Apart from Statutory Instruments, they would be able to exercise the rights which they have at present, so that their interest in attendance, in voting and in taking part in the House of Lords should be the same as it is now.
In the last two years of the lifetime of a Government, it would be reasonable to ask the House of Lords to refrain from using those rights because the electorate will be making their decision as to how the Government of the day have acted in their final two years.
This is the way in which the Government should have proceeded. I claim no proprietary interest in the Parliament (No. 3) Bill, although it is under my name, and I would willingly yield it to the Government at any time of their asking. I hope that they will consider that the time has come when they should be thinking about a much narrower point on which they should have concentrated their energies in the first instance.

Sir Cyril Osborne: I support the Amendment because I wish to kill the Bill tonight. The Home Secretary chided us this morning that some hon. Members pretended that they wanted to amend the Bill and did not say openly that they wished to destroy it. I wish to destroy it, and I hope to bring before him reasons for so doing that would have appealed to him when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I am most interested in the explanation advanced by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) of the real reason for putting forward the Bill, that it is unfair that a Labour Government should be robbed of its last year of power because of the delaying powers of the Upper House whereas a Tory Government should retain power for the full five years. I think that his method of obviating that injustice is far better than the present proposals, and I hope that the Government will think again. I say to the Home Secretary that it is evidence of a great mind in politics and in business for a man to say, "I am sorry. I was wrong. We will start again." I beg him to look at it from that angle.

Mr. Callaghan: I certainly agree with the general proposition, but one would


want to know what measure of support one could command. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would support a Measure designed to deprive the House of Lords of its delaying powers and to leave the composition untouched? Is that what he would support?

Sir C. Osborne: Yes, of course I would, I make no bones about it. If there is an injustice between the parties, obviously it should be put right.
The Home Secretary in trying to justify the proposal to his own back benchers said that this was a good thing for the Labour Party, it would reduce the 736 hereditary peers to 77 and cut out the dead wood. He said to his half-hearted supporters below the Gangway, "Surely that is a good thing. Surely it is a good bargain. It is what we have sought for years and years." This would not have appeared among his first priorities when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. There were many other things which he would rather have offered to his hon. Friends as what the Labour Party wants. This is poor fare to the unemployed and the poor people; this is not what they want. They want what he tried to give them when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: He gave them deflation.

Sir C. Osborne: I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he wanted to see the poor and unemployed better treated. The Bill puts the priorities wrong; there are far more important matters than the footling exercise with which we are playing today. I want to kill the Bill tonight so that precious Parliamentary time can be given to matters of greater importance.

The Temporary Chairman (Dr. A. D. D. Broughton): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a little from the Amendment.

Sir C. Osborne: The Home Secretary has admitted that the Amendment if carried would effectively kill the Bill. This is what I understood. The Home Secretary this morning withdrew when he was challenged on what he had said. I understood him to say that the Amendment, if carried, would render the Bill useless.
Instead of wasting precious time on a matter which is of no interest to our constituents,

we should be spending it on the cost of living, unemployment and housing for the homeless. Every Thursday the Leader of the House answers questions about the Parliamentary timetable by saying "Not next week, Sir." "There is no Parliamentary time for it." He will not find time for the things which are necessary, but he is finding time to discuss matters about which our constituents do not care a twopenny hoot. They ask why we do not discuss this or that—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hanging."] There are certain people I would hang, willingly.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I do not think that hanging comes into the Amendment.

Sir C. Osborne: Dr. Broughton, I was tempted, and I fell.

Mr. Russell Kerr: In his remarks about hanging the hon. Gentleman was not, I trust, referring to Members of another place?

Sir C. Osborne: One never knows. If the hon. Gentleman gets there, I might.
The point I wish to put to the Chancellor most seriously—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: He devalued, you see. That is why he is not Chancellor.

Sir C. Osborne: I put it to the Home Secretary that he has his priorities wrong. Nye Bevan used to tell us in the House about the art of priorities. We ought not to be giving this time day after day to things which do not matter.

Mr. John Hall: And night after night.

Sir C. Osborne: I will not be staying after eleven o'clock. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have a good doctor who says that I should go to bed at that time.
Since there is so much real opposition to the Bill from both sides, the Home Secretary should, whatever agreement with the Opposition Front Bench may have been made, withdraw the Measure. That goes for whatever agreement may have been made with the Liberal Party, but how he came to reach an agreement with the Liberals, who are never here, I do not know. I believe that if there were a secret ballot not only would the Amendment be carried, but the Bill would be rejected.
Two weeks ago I was in Rhodesia—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] This is of relevance to the Bill—and I asked the Government there why they did not leave things as they were because it had been a mistake to declare U.D.I. I ask Her Majesty's Government why they have introduced this stupid Bill instead of leaving things as they were. Instead of wasting our time on this Measure, we should be debating the plight of 500,000 unemployed people for whom the Socialists promised to find jobs, the cost of living, which they promised would not go up but which has gone through the roof, and—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the Amendment.

Sir C. Osborne: I am subject to great temptation, Dr. Broughton.
I urge the Government to tear up the Bill, to give up their efforts in this matter and to stop wasting Parliamentary time which should be devoted to matters which affect the ordinary people we represent; the coal miners who are frightened of losing their jobs and strikes, such as the one at Fords, which may make many people unemployed.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Would the hon. Gentleman advise me, wearing my Liberal hat, if there are any advantages in keeping another place as it is? For example, on the subject of Rhodesia, could not we have the benefit of the views of the Duke of Montrose?

Sir C. Osborne: Although the hon. Gentleman is sitting on the Liberal bench, I would find myself in trouble with the Chair if I were to give him that advice. If the hat were as invisible as the hon. Gentleman, I would deal with the matter.
The Government's priorities are wrong. We are wasting precious time. We should be dealing with matters which concern the people we represent. There are economic subjects to debate. Our debates on the Bill will go on and on for days, weeks and months if the Home Secretary does not tear it up and forget the whole thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Repetition."] I wish that hon. Gentlemen who are standing by the Bar outside the Chamber would either make a contribution to the

debate or accept that what I am saying is worth repeating. I will not delay the Committee. I hope that I have said enough to make the Home Secretary realise that he should take the Bill away and start again.

Mr. Ridley: The Home Secretary made great play with the figures of the number of peers who are likely to go into every category. He held the House as he tried to explain how many of each type of peer there would be. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) waxed indignant about this and said that the peers who would be changed into Conservative voting peers should be named.
I did not like the word "converted", which the Home Secretary used when he said that about 48 Conservative peers would be converted into voting peers. It is this group of people whose names we should know because the 278 whose number will be reduced to 48 are the peers who are being induced to support the Bill in another place by virtue of the possibility of their being included in the 48. Perhaps their names have not been revealed because the 230 disappointed ones might not find it so convenient to support the Measure.
I have a godfather who was at one time the Communist candidate in my constituency. I believe that he is the Shadow Minister of Agriculture for the Communist Party. I remember going to another place to hear him make his maiden speech. The late Lord Attlee followed that speech and began his congratulatory remarks by saying that it was an odd reflection on the constitution that the only way in which a Communist could enter either of the two Houses was by inheriting a peerage. If the Government have their way, even that possibility for a minority party, such as the Communist Party, to find a place in either House will be destroyed.
The hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) and the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans), representing the Welsh and Scottish Nationalist Parties respectively, are not in their places, but who will nominate Welsh and Scottish Nationalist peers?

Mr. George Younger: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that there is none.

Mr. Ridley: When the cake is carved up between the two Front Benches and the mini-Front Bench, the Liberal Party, on which is sitting the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck), there will be no bits of cake for Communists, Nationalists, flat earthers and all the other minority parties which have until now found it possible to have representation in another place from time to time. This will greatly weaken the constitutional ability of minority groups to find a way into either House.
Are there any precedents for this idea of a two-tier system in another place in which there would be non-voting but attending Members? I believe that one of my ancestors in the 18th century tied in his election to the House of Commons and received exactly the same number of votes as his opponent. This perplexed the authorities because the electoral rules of those days made no provision for dealing with such a situation. In the end they were both entitled to sit in the House of Commons and speak, but neither was allowed to vote.
This situation continued until the votes could be recounted again; and no doubt by a suitable distribution of guineas in the right quarters, my ancestor was eventually declared elected. Are we not on the way to such a situation if the Government's present proposals for the other place are approved in their present form?
The only other parallel is the present situation in regard to the Opposition Front Bench. My right hon. Friends have become virtually non-voting Members of the House of Commons from the point of view of this Measure. It is an odd feeling to have among us right hon. Friends who come and go to and from the Chamber, who speak with us in the Smoking Room and who sit with us at dinner, but who we never see in the Lobby, voting either way.

Earl of Dalkeith: Is not my hon. Friend putting forward a good argument in favour of abolishing the non-hereditary basis of the House of Commons?

Mr. Ridley: It would be out of order for me to respond to that suggestion. I cannot imagine the implications off-hand, but perhaps my noble Friend and I would find ourselves the only people here.
In claiming advantages for the two-tier system, the Home Secretary said that at one blow we would do away with the ability of the Conservative-controlled other place to frustrate a Labour Government and, at the same time reduce the number of hereditary peers from 736 to 77. It is easier to deal with the second argument by merely asking why he wishes to reduce the number to 77. If he is against hereditary peers sitting solely by right of succession, why not reduce the number to nil? The Government have it in their power to do this by merely accepting the Amendment.
In arguing against the hereditary principle, the right hon. Gentleman thought that his hon. Friends should be pleased because they were getting a reduction of nine-tenths in the number of hereditary peers. When I asked him why he had not gone on and abolished the last one-tenth, he offered no reply but said that he would deal with the matter later in his speech. When he sat down he had not dealt with it, and I did not blame him.

Mr. Callaghan: I will answer the hon. Gentleman now. An Upper House with fewer than 230 Members would not be able to work. That might be an attractive argument for those who favour the Amendment. For the rest, it is necessary to have this element and they would have to be created. I did promise to give the hon. Gentleman an answer while I was speaking last and I apologise for not doing so before resuming my seat.

Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman has provided a fascinating new piece of information. Apparently we cannot man the House of Lords by nominees. We gather that not sufficient people are prepared to be nominated. We must have 77 old stagers because nobody else can be found to do the job properly.

Mr. Callaghan: I did not say anything of the sort.

Mr. Ridley: I must have got it wrong.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman did not get it wrong. He did not get it at all. I said that one could not work the House of Lords with fewer than 230 Members. I did not say that people could not be found. I dare say that there are many hon. Members who would like to go there if they had the opportunity. If the hon. Gentleman will study the table


on page 5 of the White Paper he will see that there are many peers by succession who now attend for more than 33⅓ per cent. of the time. Those are the peers who basically, but not all of them, would be included. Please do not ask me to defend this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have done my best to give the hon. Gentleman the explanation which he sought. I do not have to defend it.

Sir C. Osborne: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept it?

Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman has not given me the explanation which I sought. I asked why he is not abolishing the remaining 77 hereditary peers and creating 77 more in the ratio of the parties, perhaps a few from the minority groups to which I referred. Why cannot we go the whole hog, if we are to have this bastard solution to the problem by creating by Prime Ministerial nomination?
The right hon. Gentleman now says that I should not ask him to defend the proposals in the Bill. Who will defend them? Where is their champion if the Minister in charge of the Bill is not prepared to defend the proposals, and nobody on the Opposition Front Bench is prepared to do so?

Mr. John Hall: On a point of order. Is it right that the Committee should have a Bill presented to it by a Minister who apparently does not believe in it and is therefore wasting the time of the Committee?

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Ridley: I have a copy of the Bill, and I see that the Home Secretary's name is the first—

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. After a number of proposals have been made to the Government to leave the Bill, and the Minister in charge of it has said that he can no longer support it, has not the time come to report progress?

The Chairman: Order. I cannot accept that.

Mr. Roebuck: Further to that point of order. Perhaps it will assist you, Mr. Irving, if I give you this early indication

that those of us on the Liberal bench certainly do not support the proposal.

The Chairman: I was inclined to wonder whether there were strangers in the House.

Mr. Ridiey: I think that we have reached a very strange juncture when the Bill is stated to be
Presented by Mr. Secretary Callaghan, supported by
The Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Cross-man, Mr. Fred Peart, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary Thomas, and Mr. Attorney-General".

An Hon. Member: Where are they?

Mr. Ridley: And when the right hon. Gentleman presenting the Bill is not prepared to defend the validity of the proposition.

Mr. Callaghan: I shall try again. I made a very long speech when the hon. Gentleman was not present. I have now added to it by means of an explanation that I promised to give the hon. Gentleman and omitted to give. I do not have to defend that any more. I made that defence in a speech when he and many other hon. Members were missing.

Mr. Ridley: I admit that I was caught out by the morning session when I was unable to be present. Perhaps that was when the right hon. Gentleman gave us the reason why he resists the Amendment. Its purpose is to remove the 77 hereditary peers who the Home Secretary estimates will have rights to attend but not to vote after the commencement of the Act. He has now stated that this is a proposition which he is not at this time prepared to defend, but which he did defend when I was not present. None of my hon. Friends can tell me that they were present and know what the defence was.
Therefore, the argument for resisting the Amendment, even if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to proceed with the Bill, is non-existent. If he now marches into the Lobby against the Amendment, he will be voting for something he finds impossible to defend. This is a position that those of us at the backlash of the Whip have often been in, but nobody in the position of wielding the Whip should put himself in the position of voting for something he finds impossible to defend.


The right hon. Gentleman has got himself into a position from which he cannot extricate himself.
I should like to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's other argument, which was meant to meet an argument that a Labour Government has to face a hostile majority in the Lords, which can be particularly damaging during the last year of a Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) went so far as to say that he could not defend this proposition, and that the Amendment should be carried as a result. I shall vote for the Amendment because I think that the whole idea of a two-tier House of Lords is nonsense, but I want to rebut the proposition that it is somehow unfair to a Labour Government.
The function of Parliament is different from that of Government. We are talking about a House of Parliament, the peers' House of Parliament. The function of Government is to govern and to propose all sorts of courses of action, some of which are very radical, dynamic and far-reaching in their effects. The more radical and Left-wing the Government, the more dynamic, revolutionary and radical the courses they suggest. The function of Parliament is to assent to those policies. The function of the other place in particular, which has never had to have a majority supporting the Government, is to delay, to give more time for thought, to take the edge off the spearhead of radical technological change and the white heat of technological revolution of which we have heard so much in the past few years.
It is no solution to say that all must be fair and equal, and that when we have a Conservative Government in office we should have a revolutionary crowd in another place who will propose all sorts of revolutionary developments and try to chivvy a Conservative Government—

Mr. John Hall: On a point of order. I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I do so on the ground that it is clear from the progress of the debate, which has been going on all day, that the Committee as a whole is completely opposed to the Bill. Moreover, Ministers are joined in their opposition. They have no belief in the Bill.

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): I am unable to accept the Motion.

Mr. Ridley: I think that I have said enough to make my point. It may not necessarily be a bad thing if the House of Lords is not always dominated by radical Members, because of the balance of the constitution between the dynamic of Government and the static of Parliament. The idea that the Parliamentary majority should be reflected in another place is contrary to the whole experience of government in this country and to the idea of having any brake of a constitutional nature on the Executive.

Sir C. Osborne: Surely my hon. Friend is not saying that he believes that a proper, elected Labour Government should be hamstrung in its last year of office, and that a Conservative Government should be free of that restraint? It is obviously fair that both parties should be treated equally in another place.

Mr. Walden: Come over here.

Sir C. Osborne: Your economic policies are too foolish for me to be associated with them.
I cannot agree with my hon. Friend when he says that he thinks that our party, to which I am proud to belong, should have an advantage inside the constitution that gives it, at the end of its period in office, a year's grace more than its opponents would have in the same situation.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Sir A. V. Harvey rose—

The Chairman: Order. We must have one intervention at a time.

Mr. Ridley: I do not make any distinction between Labour and Conservative. I make the distinction between a Government seeking to change things and the need of the country to have sufficient time to study and reflect on the wisdom of making the changes proposed. In their last year of office Governments are always in a weak position because they might lose the coming General Election and have their policies reversed by the incoming Government. All that the House of Lords has done is to reflect this weakness in the constitutional position of any Government in their last year of office.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I am with my hon. Friend, but will he take this a little further? Will he consider that if there is a Labour majority in another place it could extend the life of its Parliament for another year?

Mr. Ridley: An example of what should be a function of another place is that they should vote against the Bill. Here is a classic example of immoderate, ill-thought out and incorrect change. It is exactly my idea of another place that it should stop such a Bill until the people have had a chance to think about it, reflect on it, and express their views in the vote.

Mr. Roebuck: What would be the position if there were a Liberal majority in another place?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The imagination boggles.

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I think that the only way in which that could be achieved would be if the Bill became law and there were massive creations by the Prime Minister. He would have to make the fishes and the six loaves into millions in order to fill another place.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Will the hon. Gentleman try to explain how the in-built Conservative hereditary majority has, like his right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, agreed to the reforms he is now opposing?

Mr. Ridley: Under a series of false pretences. First, they were offered several thousand pounds a year, and they have been kept guessing as to which of them will get it. Of the 278 Tories eligible to be made into voting peers, we are told that only 48 will be converted. "Castled" would be a better word, because "converted" reminds me of North Sea gas. Only 48 will be castled. The other 230, if they but knew who they were, would be much less keen in their support of the Bill.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to impute corruption to Members of another place?

The Chairman: Order. I do not think that that was the hon. Gentleman's intention.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: We want to know who the 77 are. We want to have their names published. Perhaps we should have a Select Committee, under my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) to look into this.

Mr. Ridley: I must cross swords with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser). He keeps getting the figures wrong. The 77 are the existing successional peers who will continue to have the right to sit, but not to vote; the 48 are the number of Conservative sitting successional peers who will be converted—castled—by the Prime Minister into voting peers. "The 48 are those who are most—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is going a long way from the Amendment.

Mr. John Hall: On a point of order. In view of that Ruling, Mr. Irving, is it not clear that throughout the whole of the debate on the Amendment no one has kept to the Amendment?

The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not intend a reflection on the Chair. I am endeavouring to ensure that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) stays in order.

Mr. Ridley: I return immediately to the point. It seems necessary to have a little nomenclature, because we are getting confused with the various classes of peer, the voting peers, the peers who attend and who do not vote, and the peers who do not attend or vote. We need to find names for them. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) suggested the name "Preamble peers" and my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) suggested "nominee peers".

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again straying from the Amendment and I must ask him to come back to order.

Mr. Ridley: It will help tremendously if these three classes of peers—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing exactly the point which I asked him not to pursue.

Mr. Ridley: I am sorry, Mr. Irving, I will leave that immediately.
I want finally to refer to the motive for leaving these 77 about whom the inter-party talks, the bargain, have taken place. Various hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have given different reasons to explain this curious anomaly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that it was a sweetener, that in some way it would appeal to a large number of peers, and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that it was a concession to the Tories. I do not believe that either of those explanations is right, although doubtless there is some element of truth in both.
I believe that this is the typically British way of doing things, and it is an extremely sloppy way. We never have the courage to destroy anything, even though we intend to destroy its usefulness and its rôle and its power. I am surprised that there are not still—perhaps there are—gentlemen who are officers of the Star Chamber in our constitution. There are certainly many right hon. Gentlemen who are members of the Privy Council, an instrument of government which went out of active use many generations ago. One might almost say that Parliament itself has become a slightly out-dated form of political—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Ridley: I am sorry, Mr. Irving.
The point I wanted to make was that this relic of successional peers has been left because we like to be soft-hearted. We do not want to exclude these people or to appear to be too hard on them. But if we are to reform our institutions, we cannot have it both ways. We must either make it a nominated House, a fully automatic, nominated House, on the lines which the Government have proposed, or leave it on the old system.
To try to have the best of both worlds, or, as many of us think, the worst of both worlds, and to have both these relics of the past and peers who can vote is, as has already been said, obnoxious, objectionable and something which should be voted down in the Lobby.

Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put:—

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 171, Noes 101.

Division No. 79.]
AYES
[6.50 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Anderson, Donald
Dempsey, James
Haseldine, Norman


Archer, Peter
Dewar, Donald
Hazell, Bert


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dobson, Ray
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Doig, Peter
Hobden, Dennis


Bence, Cyril
Driberg, Tom
Hooley, Frank


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dunn, James A.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dunnett, Jack
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Blackburn, F.
Eadie, Alex
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Ellis, John
Howie, W.


Brooks, Edwin
English, Michael
Hoy, James


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belpor)
Ennals, David
Huckfield, Leslie


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ensor, David
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Buchan, Norman
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Hunter, Adam


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)




Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fernyhough, E.
Hynd, John


Carmichael, Neil
Finch, Harold
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Concannon, J. D.
Ford, Ben
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)


Conlan, Bernard
Forrester, John
Janner, Sir Barnett


Crawshaw, Richard
Fowler, Gerry
Jeger, George (Goole)


Cronin, John
Gardner, Tony
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Garrett, W. E.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Crossman, Rl. Hn. Richard
Ginsburg, David
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Judd, Frank


Dalyell, Tam
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Kenyon, Clifford


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Gregory, Arnold
Ledger, Ron


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hannan, William
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)




Lipton, Marcus
O'Malley, Brian
Small, William


Loughlin, Charles
Orbach, Maurice
Spriggs, Leslie


Lubbock, Eric
Orr-Ewing, Sir lan
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


McBride, Neil
Oswald, Thomas
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


McCann, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Macdonald, A. H.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Taverne, Dick


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Tinn, James


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Tuck, Raphael


Mackintosh, John P.
Pavitt, Laurence
Urwin, T. W.


Maclennan, Robert
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Varley, Eric G.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Pentland, Noman
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Probert, Arthur
Wellbeloved, James


Manuel, Archie
Rankin, John
Whitaker, Ben


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rees, Merlyn
White, Mrs. Eirene


Millan, Bruce
Richard, Ivor
Wilkins, W. A.


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Moonman, Eric
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rose, Paul
Winnick, David


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rowlands, E.
Woof, Robert


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)



Murray, Albert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Cakes, Gordon
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Mr. Charles Grey.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Prior, J. M. L.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pym, Francis


Balniel, Lord
Hay, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bell, Ronald
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Biffen, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Ridsdale, Rt. Hn. Julian


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Higgins, Terence L.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Roebuck, Roy


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hooson, Emlyn
Russell, Sir Ronald


Braine, Bernard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ryan, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
St. John-stevas, Norman


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Channon, H. P. G.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharples, Richard


Cooke, Robert
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Sheldon, Robert


Costain, A. P.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Silvester, Frederick


Dickens, James
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Smith, John (London & W 'minster)


Eden, Sir John
MacArthur, lan
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Emery, Peter
Maude, Angus
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tilney, John


Farr, John
Monro, Hector
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Walters, Dennis


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Neave, Airey
Ward, Dame Irene


Gilmour, lan (Norfolk, C.)
Norwood, Christopher
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Nott, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Goodhart, Philip
Orme, Stanley
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gower, Raymond
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Woodnutt, Mark


Gresham Cooke, R.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Younger, Hn. George


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Peyton, John
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. John Biggs-Davison.

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 86, Noes 174.

Division No. 80.]
AYES
7.2 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Emery, Peter


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Brooks, Edwin
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Farr, John


Balniel, Lord
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bell, Ronald
Channon, H. P. G.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'ftord & Stone)


Bessell, Peter
Cooke, Robert
Gardner, Tony


Biffen, John
Crawshaw, Richard
Gilmour, lan (Norfolk, C.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Glover, Sir Douglas


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Dickens, James
Goodhart, Philip


Booth, Albert
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Goodhew, Victor




Gresham Cooke, R.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Sharples, Richard


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marquand, David
Sheldon, Robert


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maude, Angus
Short, Mrs. Renée (Whampton, N. E.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Silvester, Frederick


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Smith, John (London & W'minster)


Hay, John
Neave, Airey
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Newens, Stan
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hooson, Emlyn
Norwood, Christopher
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Howie, W.
Nott, John
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Huckfield, Leslie
Orme, Stanley
Walters, Dennis


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Ward, Dame Irene


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Paget, R. T.
Whitaker, Ben


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Peyton, John
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Woodnutt, Mark


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)



Kitson, Timethy
Roebuck, Roy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rowlands, E.
Mr. Michael Foot and


Lubbock, Eric
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Mr. William Hamilton.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Malley, Brian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hannan, William
Orbach, Maurice


Anderson, Donald
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oswald, Thomas


Archer, Peter
Haseldine, Norman
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hazell, Bert
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Bence, Cyril
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Higgins, Terence L.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Blackburn, F.
Hobden, Dennis
Pavitt, Laurence


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hooley, Frank
Pentiand, Norman


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Probert, Arthur


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hoy, James
Pym, Francis


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rees, Merlyn


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Richards, Ivor


Concannon, J. D.
Hynd, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Conlan, Bernard
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Cronin, John
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Janner, Sir Barnett
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jeger, George (Goole)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)



Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dalkeith, Earl of




Daiyell, Tam
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Small, William


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Ledger, Ron
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dewar, Donald
Lipton, Marcus
Taverne, Dick


Dobson, Ray
Loughlin, Charles
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Doig, Peter
McBride, Neil
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Dunn, James A.
McCann, John
Tilney, John


Dunnett, Jack
Maedonald, A. H.
Tinn, James


Eadie, Alex
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Tuck, Raphael


Eden, Sir John
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Urwin, T. W.


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mackintosh, John P.
Varley, Eric G.


Ellis, John
Maclennan, Robert



English, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ennals, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Watkins, David (Consott)


Ensor, David
Macpherson, Malcoim
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Manuel, Archie
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ferryhough, E.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Finch, Harold
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilkins, W. A.


Foley, Maurice
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Forrester, John
Milne, Edward
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fowler, Gerry
Moonman, Eric
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Garrett, W. E.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Winnick, David


Ginsburg, David
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Woof, Robert


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Younger, Hn. George


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, John (Aberavon)



Gregory, Arnold
Murray, Albert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Charles Grey.

Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. Since the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and his disciples are back in the Chamber, would it not be in order for them to propose a vote of thanks to me for nobly filling the breach? May I seek your advice about the application which has been made on my behalf for the right hon. Gentleman's room in the House?

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Hooson: Further to that point of order.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot speak to a point of order which was not a point of order.

Mr. Hooson: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member who was absent from the House most of the afternoon now to usurp a seat which has been vacated for a few minutes?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Sheldon: On a point of order. A personal attack has been made upon me. Surely it is not for me to point out that for most of the afternoon I have been busily engaged in doing my duty on the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot raise that as a point of order.

Mr. Sheldon: I beg to move Amendment No. 107, in page 2, line 42, after 'as', insert 'full'.

The Chairman: We can discuss with this Amendment No. 108, in page 2, line 42, after first 'peers)', insert:
'members possessing restricted voting rights (in this Act referred to as restricted voting peers)';
and Amendment No. 106, in line 42, leave out 'voting peers shall consist' and insert:
'full voting peers shall consist only of life peers and the restricted voting peers shall consist'.
both standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and the names of other hon. Members.

Mr. Sheldon: Once again we are in the familiar position of having to yield ground because Amendments we wished to promote have fallen. I would have preferred Amendment No. 10, whereby we would have had only one tier in the House of Lords. Since that was not carried, I have to yield the ground and thereby defend something which I prefer less but which is still preferable to the Bill as it stands. If we cannot have only one tier in the House of Lords, then I would prefer Amendment No. 107, which would draw a certain distinction between various kinds of peers. If there is to be a distinction, there is no reason to accept the distinction set out in the White Paper and in the Bill.
The only distinction I can now draw is a three-way division of the peers—life peers, peers of first creation and successionist peers. Where life peers differ from the others is that they have usually been men and women of some eminence—much more usually than those in the other two categories. They have been chosen mainly because they were representative of different kinds of background and, as a result, have introduced into the House of Lords a wide range of varying interests. Another aspect of their distinctiveness is that they tend to be rather older than the average level in the House of Lords. I suppose that one could say that being older they tend to introduce the certain amount of bias—political or social—that is the frequent concommitant of age.
The peers of first creation are generally part of the aristocracy—certainly more so than the life peers. Admittedly, the aristocratic element in the peers of first creation also introduce a similar bias of age, although it does not operate in quite the same way, mainly because of the way in which they were ennobled.
The peers of first creation form a fascinating backcloth to the history of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. A large number of them were the result of political pay-off, which was such a common feature of those times. We still have that now, but it is rather different in a sense, mainly because those who engage now in political life require some sum of money to go with their peerages and this is not readily available. At the time of ennoblement of peers of first creation, however, it was automatically


assumed that they had no financial problems. The method of appointment—"kicking upstairs"—was a common feature of our Parliamentary life during that period, far more than it is today.
One can argue that there were great advantages in it. We had a ready-made rubbish bin where we could dispose of those less useful Members of this House at little expense and with considerable convenience to the Government. But what made peers of first creation so suitable in the context of those times makes them less suitable now. I am not saying that this was the only element. There were certain ennoblements due to family obligations of the kind outlined in the memoirs of Mr. Cecil King recently.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present:

Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present—

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Sheldon: I was saying that the peers of first creation provide a quite different kind of peer from the life peers, and that it is not just a question of appointment for life as opposed to the hereditary element. The ways in which they were ennobled were quite different. The political reasons have been mentioned and there were also reasons of commitments of family obligations of one kind and another, as outlined in the memoirs of Mr. Cecil King, which have provided a fascinating background to the way in which—

The Chairman: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to come straight to the Amendment.

Mr. Sheldon: Yes, Mr. Irving. I was referring to the distinction between three classes of peers which, I suggest, we should treat rather differently. The third class of peers is the successionist peers, who owe their position in the House of Lords purely to birth.
It is not necessarily the case that these three kinds of peers should have exactly the same rights. My preference would have been for one class of peers. Since we are not to have that, my second preference is not for two classes but for three. I suggest that the life peers have far more to commend them than the peers of first creation, for the reasons

I have given, so I would restrict peers of first creation to voting on matters on which, for example, the House of Commons has not reached a decision.
One can find certain criteria as to what they should vote on—whether certain legislation should be excluded or perhaps other matters upon which the House of Commons had decided. This is not included in Amendment No. 107, but I did include it in an Amendment which is, however, not being discussed with it. I will not go further into that now, except to say that there is an interesting way in which we can define the relevance of life peers differently from the relevance of peers of first creation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out that there would be 77 peers of succession out of 230. Where are the 153 other peers coming from? Are they to be life peers? Are there to be new creations?

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment. Where the peers come from has nothing to do with whether they have restricted rights or not.

Mr. Sheldon: I only intend to make a short speech.

The Chairman: I will be glad to help the hon. Gentleman to do so where I can.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) not so to shorten his speech as to leave his arguments unclarified. Is it part of his plan to create a three-tier Upper House?

Mr. Sheldon: My argument is that one tier is best. I supported Amendment No. 10 with my vote as well as with my voice. The second-best is not a two-tier system. If we are to have a nonsensical refinement of the House of Lords, I would prefer a better degree of it and to draw a distinction between three kinds of peer. That would make rather more sense than what the Bill proposes.
One should be able to consider the various other ways in which a distinction of this kind could operate. The purpose of my Amendment is to initiate that discussion on the various rights of differentiated peers. Since I would be ruled out of order on these matters, I will confine


myself to this somewhat narrow Amendment and merely point out that there is a strong case for not accepting too readily the proposed two-tier system but rather for making the kind of distinction which has been shown by experience to be the distinction which is made in the House of Lords at present.

Mr. Walden: I am rather sorry that, although I normally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on this Bill, I cannot agree with him on this Amendment. Despite the vote that we have just had, it will be clear that the majority of this House would prefer a one-tier House of Lords, assuming that we have to have the other place at all. A minority would be in favour of not having it. That matter has been disposed of. We cannot now have a one-tier House of Lords, and the Government, against all the best advice such at that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), not to mention various hon. Members on the Liberal benches, have decided to pursue this folly and we are now to have the two-tier system.
There have been those who did not offer advice, those who have already entered into a collusion not to express an honest view, as the Home Secretary virtually admitted he had. He said that he had nothing to say and he hoped that we would not press him too much.
This two-tier system will be a nonsense, an embarrassment and an object of derision for as long as it lasts, which may be a very long time. My hon. Friend argues that if we cannot have what we all know is right, namely, the one-tier system, then it is a good idea not to have a two-tier system but to go further and refine it to a three-tier system. This is not good because it would pile absurdity upon absurdity.
How, when we have committed ourselves to a nonsense, can we commit ourselves to a greater nonsense? My hon. Friend said that there should be a differentiation between those people who could vote on matters on which the House

of Commons had already made a decision and those people who would be allowed to vote, not on matters that the House of Commons had decided, but on matters that it had not decided. There are those unfortunate creatures who could not vote at all.
The effect of this Amendment would be to create three kinds of peers in respect of their relationship with the voter. There would be those below the salt and with no very great pride, who would agree to be present on the condition that they could not vote at all. Some, the tame puppies of the two Front Benches, would be there and allowed to vote on everything. Those who had appointed them would make sure that they sent people who would vote for them on any issue. My hon. Friend now suggests an intermediate category, those who can vote, provided the House of Commons has made no decision on the matter. I can foresee great constitutional complexities about this. I do not think it will grade matters on a proper scale of importance. If it was always the case that, having made a decision in the House of Commons, such a decision covered an urgent, immediate and important matter or, having failed to make a decision, that ipso facto demonstrated that it was not an urgent, important matter, then my hon. Friend's Amendment would have a point. That is far from being the case.
The House of Commons has not made decisions on matters that I regard as most urgent. On the other hand, it has made decisions on matters which I regard as of the utmost triviality. It makes no sense to have a voting category in the Lords which is allowed to vote on matters on which this House has not made a decision, but is not allowed to vote on matters on which we have reached a decision. If it is assumed that we have not come to a decision because it is not a matter of importance, that is not the case.
7.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend ought to consider this seriously, because I do not think that he has thought out all the implications of his Amendment. I see very real difficulties in deciding what is and what is not a decision of the House of Commons. Suppose, on that sad occasion last June, a matter relevant to Rhodesia


had been under discussion. I can see difficulties as to exactly how far and on what basis the House of Commons has committed itself to a view on Rhodesia. It has committed itself to a view on the "Fearless" settlement, but has it yet committed itself to a view on the constitution that the illegal Government of Rhodesia propose to apply? Obviously not. It has not yet been given time by the Leader of the House to do so, and I wish that he would withdraw this Bill and give us that time.
Obviously, the House of Commons has not made a decision on that crucial part of the Rhodesian problem. What would be the position of one of these hybrid peers should matters arise relating to the "Fearless" settlement and the proposed constitution of the illegal Government? Have we made a decision on that or not? We could have a long argument about that.

Mr. Roebuck: This is an interesting and fascinating point, and my hon. Friend ought to do the Committee the honour of elaborating it further. Could he envisage what would happen if the House of Commons had not reached a decision, but the Leader of the House, the previous Thursday, had said that the House would be given the opportunity to reach a decision on a subject? Would there then be an unseemly rush in another place to start talking about it before this House had the opportunity to do so?

The Chairman: Order. This is out of order. The Amendment is concerned with the categories of restricted voting peers. I hope that the hon. Member will keep to the Amendment.

Mr. Walden: I was only pointing out that my hon. Friend has admitted that the purpose of this Amendment would be to create these distinctions. I do not think that the Amendment would improve the two-tier system. I want to say a word in defence of keeping this Clause as we now have it and in rejecting the Amendment. Consider the advantages of the two-tier system. The Prime Minister told us, on Second Reading, that there were people who, because of the gravity of the jobs they do, could not find time to take part in legislative activity; they did not have time to become Parliamentary candidates. They can serve in another place if they have to serve on a

full-time basis. Since they are doing serious and important work, helping forward the technological revolution, they have no time to devote on a professional basis to politics—the mere practice of legislative politics.
The two-tier system will get rid of that. I do not share the fears expressed by some hon. Friends that there will be a difficulty in recruiting honest, upright, and if I may say so, simple men, who will fill this category. I predict an enormous number of applications. I would be out of order in referring to salary. One of the remarkable things about the Bill is the extent to which all references to salary are kept out, or consigned to the marginal notes of Ministers. Even on the attractions of the Bill there will not be a shortage of applicants for the other place.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself to the Amendment, which has to do with the making of a further category of restricted voting peers.

Mr. Walden: There will be no difficulty in providing people for the second tier of those who are allowed to vote. There will be a queue for it, and they will all be admirable men, well-versed in the things that have come to matter in our country, science and technology and the correct working of industry. They will not need to know very much about politics, other than who appointed them. They will be very clear about that. They will know to whom they owe their gratitude. There will be no problem in respect of those unfortunate members of the hereditary peerage who will be, selected, as the spokesman for the Government Front Bench put it, or as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said, "castled". To continue with the chess analogy, I would prefer to say "promoted". They would be promoted to be Members of the House of Lords without voting rights. I do not understand the kind of man who would accept an arrangement like that.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not concerning himself with restricted voting peers. That is what the Amendment is about.

Mr. Walden: There will not be any shortage of these people. We can give precise numbers. The number is 77.


That number would eventually be compounded, promoted, castled, or compressed. We have this two-tier system, for which I can think of only one advantage in the world, that it is better than the previous system. At least we know what we will get under the system. We know the measure of contempt that we will be able properly to give to an assembly so comprised.

If the Amendment were carried and my hon. Friend's intentions were given effect, the sort of questions—[Interruption.] Did the hon. Gentleman wish me to give way?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I apologise if I interrupted—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going outside the practice of the Committee. It was clear that the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) made no attempt to intervene. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) will not invite him to do so without obvious cause.

Mr. Walden: I was misled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who said "Order". I assumed that an hon. Member wished to interject from a direction in which I was not looking as I was, of course, facing you, Mr. Irving.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I did not wish to intervene at this moment, but as the hon. Gentleman was so courteous as to give way, perhaps I can apologise for interrupting the thread of his most interesting speech which I did not wish to do and which I would not have done had not the Lord President of the Council interrupted the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Walden: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I feel no sense of offence at all.

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman obviously believes in the theory, which is common among some colleagues, that if anything is wrong it will eventually be traced back to the Leader of the House. I thought that my right hon. Friend the

Home Secretary would be on this odious treadmill today, but I see that there is a division and that the unfortunate Leader of the House must take his share in this matter; he has to defend this appalling Bill. If my hon. Friend's Amendment were carried it would make bad worse.

Mr. Sheldon: Would my hon. Friend address his mind to the need to enshrine in legislation that which is natural in effect? What is natural about the present division in three ways?

Mr. Walden: I do not accept that it is natural, nor that it is always our practice to enshrine in legislation that which is true in effect. This Bill will not enshrine in reality what is true in effect. I see real disadvantages in the system which my hon. Friend suggests.
Who are these men who are prepared to cast their votes when the House of Commons has not made a decision? They could be members of the hereditary peerage who do not qualify. They will not be the 40 members of the 77 we have been told about by the Home Secretary. They will start with a proper sense of disadvantage and resentment. Having failed to get in by the front door and to be selected on merits, availability, sense of gratitude or previous obligations, they will be let in only on the understanding that they can vote on matters which have not been decided by the House of Commons. Even to that extent they will have gerater power than those members of the hereditary peerage who have been admitted by the front door who will not be able to vote on anything.
I suppose that it could be argued that their sense of deprivation in not having got through the compression process would be outweighed by the fact that, if we accept the Amendment, the House of Commons, out of its generosity, will have allowed them to cast votes on matters which those who were selected from the original 700 are not allowed to cast votes on.

Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend may be labouring under the misapprehension that peers of first creation with restricted voting rights are, in my Amendment, designed to be additional to the 230. The intention of my Amendment is that they would be part of the 230.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Walden: My hon. Friend is right. I was under a misapprehension. I thought that we were opening up the discussion very wide in having more than 230. That is dangerous in view of the large numbers of applications which there will be for membership of the new Chamber. If that is my hon. Friend's intention, he should have directed his mind to the question of who will be excluded to make room for these peers. We have been told that the figure of 736 would be compressed to 77. On the other hand, the rest of the 230 Members will be nominees.
Which section will make the sacrifice? Who will give up what to enable the creation of these hybrid peers? How many will there be? If it is to be for the Front Benches—and God forbid, but I suppose that that is how it will end—to decide who those hybrid peers will be, we should know how many it is envisaged will be created and how many additional opportunities for patronage there will be. If the hereditary element is to be further diminished, which I should have thought was of considerable concern to hon. Members opposite, if the 736 Members of the Upper House are to be compressed to 42, and if there is to be patronage for a hybrid who can vote only on matters not decided by the House of Commons, we should be told.

Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend is making the point which I made when I asked the Home Secretary where the other 153 peers were to come from. We know about the 77. What we do not know is where the 153 will come from. Before we are able to define accurately in the Amendment what we have in mind, we need to know about those 153.

Mr. Walden: Opposed as I am to my hon. Friend on the Amendment, I must say that he has a fair point.

The Chairman: Order. The intervention of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was out of order.

Mr. Walden: Then I will not take it up, Mr. Irving, other than to say to the Leader of the House that we need some clarification on the question of where the nominees will come from.

Mr. Peart: Not on this Amendment.

Mr. Walden: My right hon. Friend says, "Not on this Amendment". I take that to be a pledge that we shall hear something about nominees on another Amendment or on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. One of the fascinating questions which we want answered concerns the nature of nomination.
These matters need to be very carefully considered. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has carefully considered them. His Amendment would create a measure of confusion in a most unfortunate and undesirable but at least straightforward and simple system. We know what we shall get as the Bill stands. We shall have a Chamber with no value and no prestige. It will be made up of such hereditary peers as have already been sworn in plus the nominees of the Front Bench. That is straightforward and we shall know what to think of that place and of the people who choose to serve in it.
If the Amendment were carried, a great deal of confusion in terms of our response and of the practicality of working it would arise. I therefore ask hon. Members to consider very carefully before following what may be their natural inclination to vote for the Amendment which my hon. Friend so ably moved.

Mr. Airey Neave: The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) has clearly demonstrated the utter farce of discussing this Bill in its present form. The farce of the two-tier system is enough, but, despite my admiration for the gallant efforts of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), I do not think that a three-tier system would make it any simpler to understand or more effective to work. The tragedy of the Bill is that it has nothing to do with the effectivenes of Parliament as a whole. In no sense is it a reform of Parliament as a whole. That is why my hon. Friends and I and some hon. Members opposite oppose it. They should continue to oppose it in a most determined manner and to seek to amend it in any constructive way possible.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne suggested yet a third type of peer—a restricted voting peer. When the hon. Member for All Saints talked about a rush of applications for membership of


the other place, I am sure that he was not referring to this type of peer. There will not be a rush of applications to be a restricted voting peer any more than there will be a rush of applications to be a non-voting peer. The purpose, surely, of reform is to obtain the sort of people from industry, science and the professions, who will have some influence over our affairs. It is, therefore, a complete absurdity to create any type of peer who has not the right to sit and vote, and even more so to create a third type who can vote only on certain occasions.
I was not too clear what those occasions will be, because it will be very difficult to decide when the House of Commons has actually made a decision. Does this refer to a decision on a Bill or a decision on a major matter of public policy? This has to be defined. It would sometimes be very difficult for this third class of hybrid peers to decide whether they had a right to vote. There would have to be a special officer of the House of Lords to tell them whether they were so entitled. There would have to be more than one whipping system in the future House of nominees, so that those only partially entitled to vote would be able to do so. What could be more ridiculous?
This is why I do not support the hon. Member's system. But, in a way, the same defects in his Amendment apply to the two-tier system, so we are back again to the absurd situation of wanting an influential upper House in which some members will have no influence. I should like to support the hon. Gentleman, but, for the reasons that I have given, I cannot.
I wonder whether all these peers will get remuneration and expenses, since they will not all do the same thing. Would one earn more if able to vote than those who were able only to sit? There are all sorts of permutations in the complicated situation brought about by the Bill.
The hon. Member has done the Committee a great service by pointing out the absurdity of these proposals, but I cannot go as far as he does in making them even more absurd.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) referred to the Bill as a farce, and I agree. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is trying to make it an even

greater farce. Obviously, the purpose of the Amendment is to make an absurd system even more absurd. It has been said that this is a very important Bill, but I cannot agree. There are 14 hon. Members in the Committee at present, out of nearly 630, which shows their general view of how important the Bill and the Amendments are. The truth is that it is a filibuster by people who oppose the Bill. I do so myself, but the public should know that what is really happening is not that hon. Members believe in these Amendments but that this is a filibuster to kill the Bill—

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has been here very much today, but the House was crowded this morning and some very important speeches were made about the constitutional position. Obviously, this is a very important Bill. This Amendment, of course, is very narrow and hon. Members have gone to dinner. No doubt they are coming back for the more important Amendments to follow.

Mr. Hooson: If the hon. Gentleman had been here throughout the day he would know that, save for half an hour this evening, I have attended all the debate. I cannot agree that important speeches have been made. We have had repetitive speeches going over the arguments for and against the main issues in the Bill, dressed up in the form of speeches on Amendments. You, Mr. Irving, have kept a careful eye on the contributions of hon. Members to ensure that they could slant their words to come within the Amendment under discussion. I hope that I too will be able to do so, although I notice that you are on tenterhooks at the moment.
It is wrong to take this process too far. Obviously, Parliament has a limited amount of time available and we are discussing an Amendment which even the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne will admit, outside the Chamber, is an absurd Amendment, designed simply to waste time—

Mr. Sheldon: Surely it will be within the hon. and learned Gentleman's experience to understand that probing Amendments, seeking to clarify the situation, are one of the classic kinds of Amendments long accepted by the House.


Would he not further agree, if he thinks about it a little more carefully, that there is no reason why other situations should not receive the full consideration of the House?

Mr. Hooson: I cannot agree that this is a probing Amendment or one which seeks clarification. I heard the hon. Gentleman make a valuable contribution this afternoon attacking the two-tier system. He knows that what he said about that system is even more apposite to a three-tier system. The public should know that this is what is going on and that valuable Parliamentary time which is so badly needed for other things is being taken up on a Bill which everyone agrees by now was not unfairly described by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) the other day—

Mr. Walden: I would answer the hon. and learned Gentleman in this way, and would like to hear his comment. He considers that Parliamentary time is valuable. I dare say it is, but surely the onus is on those who introduced this Bill. If what he says is true about lack of public interest and concern and lack of interest in the House, the onus lies upon the Government Front Bench who brought in this Measure and not on those who are determined to scrutinise it.

The Chairman: Order. I think that both hon. Members are getting away from the Amendment.

Mr. Hooson: I mentioned earlier the lack of interest in the Amendment and said that this is manifest around us. There have not been more than 16 Members in the Committee during this debate.
The purpose of the Amendment is transparent—to try to take up time. It is another wrecking Amendment. Of course, the main speeches on constitutional matters an; important. I agree with the hon. Member that the main fault lies with the Government to seek to introduce the Bill and who want to take up a great deal of Parliamentary time. We are simply wasting time and no interpretation other than that of a filibuster can be put on the Amendment.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne

(Mr. Sheldon) for the succinct way in which he introduced his Amendment. I take the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden), although I could not agree with much of his extravagant attack on members of the Executive. After all, he has given us considerable support from time to time. On this, he thinks that the Bill is a wrong Bill. Nevertheless, he put the case very well for not accepting the Amendment and thus creating a three-tier system. I will not trespass on the other matter. I must set a good example. Accusations are thrown across the Floor from time to time, but I will keep to the narrow Amendment.

The Amendments would create a three-tier House consisting of full voting peers, restricted voting peers and others Members. It is not clear what purpose this three-tier structure will serve, since no Amendments are proposed to specify the rights or functions of each tier. My hon. Friend says that his Amendment is a probing Amendment, but he has made no case. The composition of each tier is also uncertain. Under Amendment No. 109 full voting peers will be Members who have surrendered their peerage, but under the Amendments to line 42 they will consist only of life peers. Restricted voting peers will consist of those peers of first creation who are qualified as such under the following provisions of the Bill; that is, the "other Members" as defined in the Clause as drafted. The "other Members" in the Clause as amended are not defined.

I should be out of order if I took up the points which have been raised about composition. I admit that it is an interesting subject—it was mentioned on the previous Amendment—but I should be out of order. For those reasons, I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Powell: We are here considering an alternative to the two-tier Chamber, which is the essence of Clause 2, and to which a long debate was devoted on the previous Amendment when, as you, Mr. Irving, and the right hon. Gentleman will recollect, the Home Secretary intervened with a description of the working of the two-tier system.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think it appropriate, and I hope that


you, Mr. Irving, will regard it as reasonably within the scope of the present debate, if I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could give us a little further enlightenment about a point made by the Home Secretary on the proposed two-tier House which these Amendments would modify in a way which, I agree with him, is undesirable and certainly represents no improvement.
The problem, which I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would take the opportunity to elucidate, was the repeated return of the Home Secretary to one fact which I think very much puzzled the Committee. The Home Secretary was talking about the present peers by succession who would be part of the upper tier, if I may so describe it, of voting peers in the new Chamber. He constantly said—and he referred hon. Members to the While Paper—that there would be 77 such peers by succession in that upper or voting tier. I really think that the right hon. Gentleman owes it to the Committee to clarify a point, which I know puzzled a good many hon. Members, as well as myself, the explanation of which is surely of some importance.
The Home Secretary continually referred the Committee to page 5 of the White Paper and to the table on that page. That table certainly shows the number of peers by succession who are in the present House of Lords and it also shows the number of those peers who, at present, attend more than a third of the time; that is, those who would qualify under this scheme to be voting or upper tier peers.
The puzzle, which I am sure many hon. Members would be grateful if the Government spokesman could clear up, is: how and by what reasoning, from either of those figures—the 736 total peers by succession or the 138 peers by succession who at present form part of the working House, those who attend more than a third of the time—do the Government get to their figure of 77 peers by succession in the new upper tier? Certainly, no reason was given for it, but it is a precise figure. There must be a reason why it is 77 and not 75—

The Chairman: Order. I have been trying to relate what the right hon. Member

is saying to the Amendment, and I have given him scope to say what he had to say. However, I feel that he is now outside the scope of the Amendment, unless he now wishes to, and can, relate it to the Amendment.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Irving, for your forbearance.
I submit that as the Amendments provide the Government with successive opportunities to explain the scheme, as they see it working, there might reasonably be latitude for questions to be put to the Government on the working of the scheme which is enshrined within the Bill, but which, of course, we are seeking to amend.
The right hon. Gentleman assures me, by some kind of signal, that he has taken the point about the puzzle which was troubling me and, I think, others. I conclude by hoping that either now or later in the Clause, but at any rate before we leave the Clause, the right hon. Gentleman will be willing, and the Chair will permit him, to clear this up for the benefit of us all.

Mr. Sheldon: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I beg to move Amendment No. 182, in page 2, line 44, at end insert:
'and of the representatives of science, technology, the arts, industry, agriculture, commerce, finance and the professions, elected in accordance with section (Election of representatives of science and technology, industry, commerce and the professions) of this Act.'

The Chairman: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take new Clause 11—"Election of representatives of science and technology, industry, commerce and the professions"—and Preamble Amendment No. 67, in page 2, line 8, at end add:
And whereas it is also desirable to include representatives of science, technology, the arts, industry, agriculture, commerce, finance and the professions elected by an appropriate process by societies, associations, trade unions and professional organisations up to a number of one-third of membership of the House of Lords.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: The number of the Amendment has been altered—originally it was No. 128—because it had in it "the 20 representative peers". That has now been taken out and the number


thereby changed. If the right hon. Gentleman will follow me, I am wanting to add to Clause 2, line 44, that there should be not only members possessing full voting rights and other members, but also representatives of these outside bodies, which I will explain in a moment.
The method of election of these outside representatives is set out in new Clause 11, which states:
(1) The House of Lords may make draft regulations prescribing the names of societies, association;, trade unions and professional organisations entitled to elect the representatives referred to in section 2(1) of this Act, to membership of the House of Lords up to a maximum of one-third of the total voting membership of the House of Lords, and prescribing the number of representatives for each such body and the method of voting and counting of votes.
(2) Any draft regulations under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made and if each House resolves that the draft regulations be approved, they shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act.
(3) Elections under this section shall take place in virtue of a Royal Proclamation which may be issued immediately on the dissolution of any Parliament.
That would involve altering the Pre-able. Amendment No. 67 to the Preamble, I think, is a genuine declaratory statement:
And whereas it is also desirable to include representatives of science, technology, the arts, industry, agriculture, commerce, finance and the professions elected by an appropriate process by societies, associations, trade unions and professional organisations up to a number of one-third of membership of the House of Lords.
Before proceeding with my argument, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to pass on to the Home Secretary that I did not like his animadvertions this morning on the whole of the Opposition, as if we all came here to do nothing but block the Bill. There have been 40 or 50 Members on this side of the Committee throughout most of the day, most of whom are not here to block the Bill. I have put down only two Amendments, both of which are constructive. One was to have 20 representatives of the herediatry peers, and the other is this one which seeks to inject some democratic representation from the great functions of the realm into the House of Lords.

Mr. Peart: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. Knowing the hon.

Gentleman, I accept that he is here to put a constructive case, and that that is his attitude to the Bill. I welcome it.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Various sections of the Opposition have not concerted together. In fact, I did not work with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) who has been very active on this Bill.
The Government are in difficulties, because there is one thin red-blue line running through these debates, and that is that the back benchers on both sides are opposed to many parts of the Bill. Many of us on this side are opposed to the nomination of Members, and we are opposed, therefore, to the non-independence of the other place. We think that it will be too dependent on the Executive. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are opposed to it because they fear that the other place will become antidemocratic, and perhaps reactionary. My Amendment will be a catalyst which will bring together both sides of the Committee. I believe that it will provide an escape route for the Government to lead a united House on this part of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Government will welcome it as a constructive catalyst.
If the Committee will permit me to do so for five minutes, I should like to dig into history, because I believe that I can show to the Committee that what I am proposing is really in the organic tradition of the House of Lords.
When one examines the history of the Lords, one sees that William the Conqueror insisted on the presence at his court of the tenants-in-chief, and from these men he chose his chief advisers. During the 12th and 13th centuries this body of men round the King developed into the Magnum Concilium, or Great Council as it was called. The Council consisted of earls, greater barons, lawyers, archbishops, and bishops. It consisted of at least six different types of people. The baron was a very important man in those days. He was said to be worth 13 knights—no animadversion on the present knights; obviously he was thought of as a very important person.
This Great Council, or the Magnum Concilium, was the origin of the Lords.


It was previous to the "Parliamentum", before the knights and burgesses were summoned to the Model Parliament, and so there developed out of the Magnum Concilium, and the Parliamentum that came along, the three Estates of the Realm, the clergy, the barons, and the commons, or, as it was said in those days, the men who prayed, the men who fought, and the men who worked. I believe that the true tradition of the House of Lords was to represent the great functions of the State, rather than to represent the State on a territorial basis. They left it to the commons to bring forward the territorial representation.
That was brought out rather well in the Bryce Report of 1917, Cmd. 9038, when Viscount Bryce, who was Chairman of a conference on the reform of the second Chamber, hoped that his recommendations would come into being after the First World War. The Bryce Report said that the House of Lords should consist of persons of experience in various forms of public work, judiciary, Parliament, local government, agriculture, commerce, industry, finance, and education. It said that the Lords should have within its bounds a certain proportion of persons who are not partisans, of a cast of mind to judge political questions with calmness and comparative freedom from prejudice and bias. That is what I am trying to do in the Amendment.
Viscount Bryce and his colleagues went on to recommend the election of such Members of the House of Lords through Members of the House of Commons grouped in areas, but that never came about, and the whole thing was dropped. I believe that what was said 41 years ago is as true today as it was then. The Amendment falls into line with Viscount Bryce's recommendations, with the Preamble, and with new Clause 11, which deals with election by societies.
What we have in mind is that one-third of the House, say 70 to 80—and that might take the place of the 75 representative peers who have been talked about—could be elected by such bodies as the Royal Society, the C.B.I., the T.U.C., the great industries, the N.F.U., the agricultural workers, and the professions, such as the surgeons, the physicians, and the accountants. There could, perhaps, be

one from each body. There might be 75 bodies represented in the House of Lords. I believe that this would not only fulfil the tradition of the House of Lords, but would contribute to its organic growth in the future.

8.15 p.m.

But the Amendment has another great advantage. It seeks to inject some democracy into the House of Lords, which is what hon. Gentlemen opposite have been asking for. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is not here. I know that he has to go to an important meeting, but I am certain that if he were here he would be delighted to know that some democracy would be injected into the House of Lords if the Amendment were accepted.

The House of Lords, anyway as to one-third of its membership, would be represented of the true forums of the functions of the nation, making the Lords an independent body, not just the lap-dog of any Government, whether Labour or Tory. In the belief, therefore, that these new peers, who will be voting peers, men of great distinction elected by the great functions of the realm, would be a great addition to the discussions, the resolutions, and the considerations of the Lords, I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment.

[Mr. GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Mr. Sheldon: This is one of a series of Amendments which seek to produce in the House of Lords the kind of body that would be complementary to this legislative Assembly, and in so far as that is the intention of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) I think that few could quarrel with his aim. The difficulty comes when the hon. Gentleman seeks to clothe it with a legislative framework. I think we can all say that there is a strong case for getting into the Lords people with practical day-to-day knowledge of what is happening in fields a little remote from the ones with which we are concerned. This knowledge is becoming rarer in this House, and is becoming rather more necessary than it used to be to keep the legislative machine up to date with what is being discussed and considered in other spheres. It is very useful to have this kind of experience in a readily available form.
It is when we consider how we get these people that the problems arise. I am thinking here not of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden), when he quite legitimately spoke of the problem of bringing people with no politics into the other place. Even if we obtained the right kind of people with an understanding of the professions, industry, and so on, we should still need to teach them politics, because it would be political matters which they would discuss and political decisions which they would take. That is an obvious problem to be overcome. However, apart from that—this will apply to several similar Amendments—there would be the difficulty raised by the tendency of associations and organisations to submit a certain sort of person for membership of the House of Lords.
The great temptation is to submit the names of people engaged in the politics of their professions and background rather than people with the precise up-to-date knowledge of the kind which is most needed. Doctors, for example, would be almost sure to select someone from the British Medical Association, not a man with, say, general practitioner knowledge of a kind we are rather short of today, not someone with specialist knowledge which can be put to great use in the consideration of certain medical matters. Doctors would be inclined to submit someone engaged in the politics of medicine within the B.M.A. Likewise, engineers would not be inclined to put forward people engaged in the modern problems of bridge building, the design of dams, and the like.

Mr. W. Howie: I am trying hard to agree with my hon. Friend on many points during our debates, but I must point out to him that there are those, for example, engineers, who come to this place straight from the drawing board at which they have been designing bridges and the like, me, for one.

Mr. Sheldon: I am aware that this House is representative in the best kind of way. The difficulty is that, even though my hon. Friend and I came here with that direct experience, after a few years, because of the way in which the state of knowledge moves so rapidly nowadays in the professions, engineering,

medicine and science, one finds oneself not quite so up-to-date as, perhaps, one is inclined to think.

Mr. Howie: We try hard.

Mr. Sheldon: The advantage of membership of the House of Lords is that people are able to keep up to date because they can still continue to work in their professions.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: But would not the great societies tend to send the heads of their professions, men of great experience, perhaps those who had risen to become president—one thinks of the President of the Royal Society—but who are still very much in touch with the work from which they have come?

Mr. Sheldon: I thought so, too, until I came to be concerned with the selection of people responsible for representing their own association. My own experience, for what it is worth—not in a wide field, but wide enough at least for me to draw certain conclusions—has been that the kind of person one wanted was the young man in the prime of his working capacity, probably about 40 years of age, who was making great advances and who, if he could be persuaded to give, perhaps, half a day a week, could give of his experience and knowledge in a variety of useful ways. One way in which he could give that time to great advantage might be by attendance at the House of Lords.
Clearly, such a man would not necessarily have to attend every week, but there are occasions, as we all know, when direct practical knowledge and expertise can be of great value in a legislative assembly, of greater value than the knowledge possessed by someone who ceased direct participation in his previous occupation three or four years ago. One wants the man who is still at work here and now, who is engaged, perhaps, on the precise problem under discussion.
The example of nuclear energy comes to mind. This is of interest to several right hon. and hon. Members. Questions concerning nuclear energy could be much better dealt with if one had present just a few people who were working directly on the problems involved and could give of their experience through the House, in the wider political context there, so


that there would be a readier diffusion of their knowledge and advice.
That is one of the advantages one would hope to have, but I cannot see that we should get it through the Amendment. I do not believe that the right sort of people would be selected. We should find selected, as I have said, not the bridge builders, the dam designers and so on but people engaged in the politics of their profession, and, moreover, not the kind of politics which is of use to the House of Lords. It would be the politics within their own field. They would have the same kind of defect, if I may so call it, from which we suffer in not having immediate and up-to-date knowledge such as we once had but which we no longer have in quite the same form. That would be the kind of person sent to the House of Lords, and he would not have the other advantages which we possess.
Everyone admits that industrialists could play a useful part. I make full confession to my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints that such knowledge is no substitute for politics, and the problem which still remains is how to secure the advantage of both industrial, commercial, scientific and other knowledge and the political expertise which must accompany it. That problem remains unresolved, but the advantages of the professional background are there none the less.

Mr. Walden: My hon. Friend says that it is a problem still unresolved. Is it not unresolvable? Is it not an illusion to imagine that there is any hope of securing people expert in politics if they have not spent the greater part of their time in the practice of politics? Is it not an illusion to imagine that one can breed, as it were, a generation of technologists who will have the same flair and skill which a man will have after lifelong membership of a political party, after having been a local councillor, and so on? In so far as the Government are trying to serve that purpose by the Bill, they will inevitably be disappointed.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Sheldon: That is a valid point, but in a House of Lords with a large number of members there is room for a

small number of people who could spread greater understanding of what they were doing to those in the reformed House of Lords; not that they will make decisions on political matters. There is room in a legislative assembly for a few people, not outnumbering those whose main qualifications are political, who are able to contribute.
It has been said that this House has suffered considerably in the post-war years from its inability to attract people concerned with day-to-day problems. This did not mean that industrialists, or whoever they might be, would influence the whole House. It meant that they were able to express a point of view which, in recent years, has not been put quite so well. If out of the 630 Members of the House of Commons we had only 20 such people, who did not interfere with the political running of the House of Commons, but who would tell us the present state of affairs in matters about which they were well qualified to speak, the House might gain, as would the House of Lords. It would be easier to accommodate such people in the House of Lords, with its large membership, and they would be asked to give only a small amount of time. The Amendment is not drafted in such a way as to get these people. The way in which to obtain them is still unresolved.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: This series of Clauses was intended to be read with other Clauses which have either already been dealt with or are still to come. One reason for Clause 19, on which I spoke earlier, was to rectify the fault to which the hon. Gentleman refers, namely, that the best representatives from industry and the professions would not necessarily be obtained if it were left to the industry or profession to choose the man to come to the reformed House, but we would hope that the Sovereign might act with appropriate advice in selecting people for the other House, and that this would tend to overcome the difficulty.

Mr. Sheldon: I cannot recall the terms of the Clause which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, so I am not in a position to comment on it. I can comment only on the Amendment and the new Clause which are under consideration.
The recommendations which the Royal Society might make would not be of the


scientists who are making the great discoveries and who are the people we have been unable to attract. The C.B.I. is not likely to recommend an industrialist of the kind who could be of use here and now. We have not found a way of getting people for these short contributions which might be of value.

Mr. Walden: My hon. Friend is speaking of short contributions of assistance to the legislature. Many people would think it valuable to have important people who are expert in their subjects to advise legislators. It is very good for Committees to have such people in front of them. But what my hon. Friend suggests is that we should make them legislators, and I suggest that this is not a good idea.

Mr. Sheldon: Perhaps I should state the solution which I have in mind, new Clause 13. This provides that a person may be invited to attend the House of Lords if he is supported by an application from not less than one-sixth of the Members of the House of Lords, and that such a person may take part in one specified debate. A person who is engaged in immediate problems, in industry, commerce, science or in any profession may be delighted to accept such a limited invitation and so present his expertise on a wide stage at a time when it might be relevant and of great assistance to the legislative body. I put forward that Clause for the consideration of the House.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) was deploying a powerful case a short time ago against Members of another place being entitled to attend but not to vote. How does he reconcile new Clause 13, which entitles those people only to attend and speak but not to vote, with the arguments to which we were listening a few minutes ago?

Mr. Sheldon: This Clause does not necessarily have the full support of my hon. Friend, but, in any case, these people would be invited and would be limited in number. The new Clause permits only a maximum of three such people to be invited, and three out of 1,000 is a very small proportion. We must consider the contribution which they might be able to make as a result of their expertise.

Sir C. Osborne: Does the hon. Gentleman think that young top executives—let us leave aside for a moment the older men who are over the top and going down, so to speak—will come with their expert knowledge to a Chamber and continue to give their advice if that advice is continually ignored?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris): Order. We must get back to the subject of the Amendment.

Mr. Sheldon: The problem of getting the people we really want will always be with us and that is why it might be advantageous to farm out the task to some sort of association. If we are serious about making a success of this, we could issue invitations ourselves in the short-term, but in the longer-term a different method is needed.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present—

8.39 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I give the Amendment my qualified support because it provides a limited attempt to bring an element of democracy into the arrangement which the Government have proposed.
If we accept that we must have a second Chamber—I would be out of order in arguing that point at this stage—then the arguments revolve around the question of how the Members of that Chamber are to be appointed. It is because of this issue that some hon. Members have attended the Committee and have spoken at length while others have stayed away. Are these people to be appointed or to be elected?
The main reason for the Bill is growing dissatisfaction with a method of appointment to the House of Lords by what one can only describe as a sort of genetic sweepstake, and it is the determination to get rid of the hereditary principle which has resulted in our embarking on these proceedings. Although it is possible to argue that the hereditary principle should go, it should be pointed out that it has not been as unsatisfactory as it is sometimes made out to be.
The proposal about the appointment of Members of the other House by party


leaders has made hon. Members uneasy about the Bill. At an earlier stage, when I was endeavouring to discover the Government's intentions, it was made clear that the Government were not in favour of an elected element. Nor were they in favour of entry by birth. I even suggested a scheme for a national lottery, with peerages as prizes, but that did not receive much enthusiasm.
If the second Chamber is to be satisfactory, it must be accountable; in other words, it must have an elected element. I say this not because I am convinced that the electoral system always selects the best people, but because those elected have been selected by the electorate and are responsible for their actions to the electorate. The trouble with the hereditary principle or a nominated system is that people can take action without being accountable. Weighing the balance between the different methods of appointment, I am in favour of a method which makes people accountable. We should, therefore, at least consider embarking on a new type of method, and the Amendment sets out a system of what one might call electoral colleges to ensure that representatives with different qualifications are appointed.
I would have cast the list in a different way and I would not regard the list set out in the Amendment as definitive. It is all very well to speak of scientists, technologists and others, but hon. Members can no doubt think of other people with expertise. I regret that the Amendment does not contain provision for the election of representatives of age groups, for this might be a way to overcome some of the difficulties which certain youth groups are facing. However, it introduces the principle of electoral colleges, which I welcome.
I should have liked to see the method of election spelt out more clearly. It is true that it is referred to in new Clause 11, but that merely refers to something which may be decided later. If we were embarking on the wholly new principle of setting up electoral colleges to ensure that the whole population elect an assortment of people rather than election by the whole population, which we hope will result in a fairly mixed assortment, we must take specific steps to see that various interests are represented in a fixed

proportion—and for a fixed and definite period.

Sir C. Osborne: What is the difference between this idea and Mussolini's Fascist concept? That was exactly what he did in the 1920s. We are supposed to hate the Fascist concept, but this is Fascism brought back into action.

Dr. Winstanley: I seem to remember that Mussolini also made the trains run on time, but that does not necessarily mean that one has to have a Fascist system to run the railways.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are many good ideas in all other forms of government in other parts of the world? The fact that Mussolini adopted that idea does not mean that it is bad.

8.45 p.m.

Dr. Winstanley: I would go further and say that many bad people have good ideas. I do not specify any in particular. We are concerned not with the history of ideas, but whether the idea outlined in the Amendment and the new Clause associated with it would be a suitable new method of making appointments to a second Chamber. It is not an exclusive method. A second Chamber wholly constituted in this way would be entirely unsatisfactory, but it is a way of constituting one-third of it. I would like to see the constitution of the other two-thirds spelt out. I should like to see representation of newly-formed regional councils, but that would have to come later, after the Maud Report, and I think this Bill should have been left until after the Report.
I should like to see such proposals dovetailed into the ones we are considering, so that a second Chamber was comprised of elected representatives on a regional basis, members elected by a series of electoral colleges, and had Members perhaps sitting ex officio by direct right from regional councils, with perhaps certain other nominated Members, and so on. Then we should have a variegated second Chamber and, what seems crucial, a Chamber depending for its existence at least in part on the electorate. It is not crucial that a place should always be composed of the very best people. The important thing is not just efficiency, but the way in which it


is constituted. What makes a community satisfied or dissatisfied with a governmental organisation is its degree of personal control over it.
I am inclined to think that an electorate would accept from a Government that it has elected things that it would not accept from a Government who have been appointed and arrived there by divine right or heredity. This proposal would at least make in the long run for some degree of public acquiescence in a new kind of second Chamber.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving the Amendment, which I support, with the reservations I have expressed. It introduces an element of election into something that should be elected in some way or perhaps should not exist at all.

Mr. Derek Page: I am not happy with the suggestion in the Amendment, because it would backfire in a way that would surprise its supporters. Far from introducing technicians and technologists into politics, it would introduce politics into the realms of the technologists and technicians. Why is it suggested that we want a House of Lords? It is, surely, that we require normative decisions. Where clarification is needed on a scientific or technological question, we have good access to sources of information. They are known already, and the facts are clear from experimental evidence. We can see this easily in the experiments in our House with Select Committees, which are a very good avenue for obtaining access to such information.
I worked for about 20 years in the chemical industry. I cannot believe that expertise in technology goes hand in hand with expertise in normative values, and in politics we are dealing essentially with quality judgments. There is no reason to believe that good scientists and technologists are good at quality judgments. There is no substitute for a long and active life in politics to learn the job. If the Amendment were adopted, the professional bodies would be wide open to the major parties moving in to try to get control of the electoral mechanism of those bodies, and that would be a retrograde step.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I apologise for not having been present when my hon.

Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) moved the Amendment. I was called out on a matter connected with my constituency and I found myself detained by the snow. Like all Englishmen, I never cease to be surprised by our climate.
I wish to pay tribute to the contribution made to the debate by the Liberal Party. Some hard things have been said about the Liberal Party and individual Liberal Members. The complaint has been voiced that far more attention should have been paid by the Liberal Party to this far-reaching constitutional reform than has been evidenced so far. But let us pass a sponge across all that. I welcome the support in principle offered by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), who made a very good speech. I also welcome the proximity, if only for a brief while, of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). This is the first time that I have sat in the Chamber bang next door to a Chief Whip of any kind, and it was a pleasure to hear the sympathetic noises of the hon. Member for Orpington as well as the constructive speech of the hon. Member for Cheadle.
I do not think that anyone would expect a rational reform of Parliament from Her Majesty's present advisers.

Mr. Howie: I was under the impression that this reform was cooked up in some strange way between the two Front Benches and, consequently, that lot over there must take at least some of the blame for this package.

Sir C. Osborne: Who are the Government? Who introduced the Bill?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I was about to mention the leaders of the Conservative Party.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) must be careful not to be led up the garden path, as it were, by remarks which are not strictly concerned with the Amendment. He must keep closely to the Amendment. I am waiting for him to come to the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: It is a little hard when aspersions are cast at our respected leaders by an hon. Member opposite—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. It does not matter what aspersions are cast so long as hon. Members stay in order, and the only way in which they can stay in order is by keeping strictly to the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I share the feelings of the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) to this extent; that I feel a certain disappointment that my right hon. Friends should have in any way countenanced this scheme to abolish another place and replace it by a creature of party patronage. I should have liked the Tory Party to produce some rational plan of reform.
Earlier today, I was chided by the Home Secretary, who said that we were just trying to block the Bill, to defeat it. Indeed we are, but he also suggested that we did not have any constructive proposals to offer. The Amendment is a constructive proposal, and due recognition has been given to this by the Liberal Party. I concede to the hon. Member for Cheadle that this is but a sketch of a plan; it is not worked out in detail. We would like the Amendment to be accepted by the Government and then we would like the Government's help and advice in bringing it into effect. Failing such a reform, or a reform on these general lines, I would rather leave the other place as it is.
It is rather disappointing that there is such an absence of constructive ideas on this subject. In the past the Tory Party has furnished good and advanced ideas. The principle behind the Amendment is not entirely original. It introduces an elected element into the Lords, but this is nothing new. After the 1911 crisis it was the diehards of the Conservative Party who concluded that, after all that had happened, an elected second Chamber was the sort of Chamber to which the country could be persuaded to give effective and sufficient powers.
From Austen Chamberlain's memoirs, "Politics From Inside", I extract these words:
Such men as Willoughby de Broke and Northumberland share this view now and prefer to trust their fate to the electors rather than to some 'hanky-panky' nomination scheme which Curzon would manipulate.
So would I. I always believe in the Tory maxim of which the Churchills were so fond—"Trust the people". I

would rather trust electors than this hanky-panky nomination scheme which the Prime Minister of the day could manipulate.

Sir C. Osborne: My hon. Friend has made a quotation going back to 1911 referring to Lord Curzon, whom he would not trust. He likened it to the modern Government. Who is the modern Curzon that he distrusts—someone on the opposite side or someone on this side?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend knows that I am somewhat deficient in trust of Her Majesty's present Government and the head of this Administration. I am trying to persuade my honourable but reactionary Friends. Anyone who desires to change anything in Britain must first explain that it has been done or suggested before. I therefore tell my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne)—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I do not think that we want to change anything particularly at the moment. What we want to do is to get back to the terms of the Amendment.

Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order. Surely the Amendment implies some change?

The Temporary Chairman: The Amendment may imply some change. Indeed, it might be deemed to imply quite a lot of change. The way I am construing the Amendment is fairly close to the terms in which I see it.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I hope that I shall be given enlightenment to see the Amendment through your eyes, Mr. Grant-Ferris. It is incumbent upon me to persuade my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite that the Amendment is worth their support. Misgivings were expressed about it. But it has a good Tory pedigree. In 1910, the Earl of Wemyss proposed—and this is much on the lines of the Amendment—
… that important trading and other representative societies should each name three Members of the existing peerage in the current and each succeeding Parliament, to speak and act on behalf of such societies, on all questions in which they are interested, and that the names of the peers so nominated be entered in the Journal of the House.
The noble Earl listed 22 bodies, most of them commercial associations, but also professional associations such as


the R.I.B.A. and the Society of British Sculptors. There is, therefore, some precedent for the idea in the Amendment in general terms.
This will perhaps commend itself to non. Members opposite who are concerned, as we all are, with the health of our democracy. The proposal here is to extend our system of Parliamentary representations. I should have thought that the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) would have welcomed that. The Amendment proposes an innovation but it also, in a sense, proposes to restore some of the earlier functions of the House of Lords. If you want to change something in Britain, you should point out that it has been done before. I hesitate to say anything about the history of the House of Lords in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell) but I think it is true to say that, originally, the House was, to a great extent, a functional Chamber representative of spiritual and feudal estates at the time. My right hon. Friend does not contradict me.
The suggestion in the Amendment is that it would not be a bad thing for our modern Parliament if it provided functional as well as geographical representation. It asks for a system of double representation—in effect, representation of the people in this House through the party organisations and universal suffrage, and in another place as members of estates and interested groups.
This House is a House of communities, representing the place where the voter lives. But nowadays millions of our fellow people live away from their work and have perhaps more in common with their work mates or professional colleagues than with their neighbours in the suburb or in the housing estate or in the new town.
We are asking here for a reformed second Chamber to include an element which should represent the subject in his professional pursuit. We have often heard the complaint in this House and elsewhere—it was expressed in a turnover article by Cecil King in The Sunday Times—that the great interests of the country in Parliament are not represented fully in Parliament. Parliamentarians complain that the Executive is always consulting bodies outside Parliament behind

their backs. Under this proposal, those outside bodies could be brought within the orbit of Parliament itself.

Dr. Winstanley: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear a crucial point? Would those elected be elected for a finite period? Surely the reason for replacing the hereditary system is not that it always selected the wrong people, but that there was no way of getting rid of them. Can he confirm that these interesting parallels he is putting forward are different in the sense that these people would be subject to re-election from time to time?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Yes, indeed. But I do not wish to be drawn too far on that aspect. I would add that I favour the retention of a hereditary element in the House of Lords.

Mr. Derek Page: I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman welcomes consultation between Ministers and outside bodies and that the entry to another place of specialists from these bodies might be of even greater advantage. Is not he aware that some of us feel that certain hon. Members have been at a disadvantage as compared with outside bodies in getting at Ministers?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: That is a point. It may not be a very good point but I think that it is. I think that outside bodies should be represented in Parliament itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) thinks that it is a bad idea.

Sir C. Osborne: Sir C. Osborne indicated assent.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: If one wants to give something a bad name, one only has to say that a Fascist dictator had a similar idea. But many other people have had ideas of this kind. Churchill, for example, recognised the need for expert and corporate representation in Parliament in his Romanes Lecture in 1930. He went further and suggested that there should be a "House of Industry" as the third House of Parliament.
If we want to be very ideological, I would point out also—although I do not want to damn the idea on this side of the Committee—that this was an idea which the Fabian Webbs had, as well as the ex-Fabian Leo Amery. It was the idea also of Salazar. But it is also the idea of Mendes-France and it is something which seems to make sense to


many people who are otherwise ideologically opposed to each other.
General de Gaulle proposes and is taking action towards merging the Economic and Social Council provided for in the Fifth Republic with the Senate. In our islands, the Eire Senate consists of 60 Members, with 11 nominated by the Prime Minister, six elected representatives of the universities and 43 elected by panels of candidates elected on a vocational basis, representing cultural and agricultural interests, industry and commerce, public administration and the social sciences.
To take another example, in Italy the President of the Republic is nominated to the Senate by representatives of the social, scientific, artistic and literary life of the country. This will appeal to the Liberal Party—[Interruption.] There do not seem to be any of its representatives present just now.

Mr. Birch: It appeals to me very much.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am very glad that the idea finds favour with the "Leader of the Liberal Party". Corporate constituencies were suggested at the time of the Great Reform Bill, and university seats. There is something to be said for representation in Parliament of a university. It is a matter of regret to me that, although it was set forth in a Conservative election manifesto that we would restore university seats when we returned to power, we did not do so.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris): I am trying to be as lenient as I can, but the university seats in Parliament are not included in his Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. While not wishing to question your ruling, the Amendment does refer to the arts and the professions. Surely, in practice, these would come largely from the universities?

The Temporary Chairman: It is quite clear what the hon. Gentleman was trying to do. He was trying to develop the connection with university seats in Parliament, maybe in either House.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to you, Mr. Grant Ferris,

and I shall wait for another occasion to raise the question of university representation, which is clearly connected with the kind of representation suggested in the Amendment.
I recognise the difficulties of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because of the Conservative majority, as they see it, in the House of Lords. That does not justify the sort of reform that they have brought before the Committee. I recognise, too, the limitations on the expert, and that is why this Amendment proposes that this form of representation should be confined to a proportion of the other place. I think it necessary and right to include also a proportion of the hereditary peers.

Mr. Walden: I rise to oppose new Clause 11. I do it with regret because, reading the new Clause, I can see the objectives it seeks to attain and I appreciate that they could be good and desirable. This is a case of making fine and valuable distinctions. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said that bad people sometimes get very good ideas. I am sure that is true, and equally, very good people sometimes get very bad ideas.
The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) read out a formidable list ranging from Churchill to the Fabians. I would prefer the former, incidentally, on constitutional matters. His list included Austen Chamberlain, Salazar, who is not someone I would particularly wish to follow and Mendes-France, who is someone I certainly would follow. He mentioned all this, and he could have added—and it would have been relevant to his point—that the Tory Party has not traditionally been against constitutional innovation—Professor Dicey, who, as a result of the outcome of the Parliament Bill which we are seeking to revise, came up with a number of suggestions including the doctrine of the referendum. I suspect we will hear a good deal more of that in future.
I cannot pass over the new Clause without reading the Title accompanying it—
Election of representatives of science and technology, industry, commerce and the professions".
Twenty years ago it would have read,
Industry, commence and the professions".


Someday, someone will do a brilliant piece on how, when and why the public men of this country became brainwashed by the concept of science and technology and its unique value in our deliberations. I could claim within my family and certainly within my old university to have as many scientists and technologists as relatives and friends as anybody else. But I do not think that their judgments on politics or the working of the House of Commons, or anything else of public concern, are better than those of anybody else. The idea has crept in that anybody who has anything to do with science or technology must be uniquely gifted to assist us in our deliberations. They are not worse than anybody else, but they are no better.
9.15 p.m.
It is very unfortunate that science and technology should have been promoted ahead of industry, commerce and the professions. It would be a very good thing if the House of Commons and the nation got back their sense of proportion about the relative values of science and technology.

Sir D. Glover: In this argument, we have to prove that they are no worse than anybody else. With the hon. Gentleman looking across at me, and with me looking across at him, nobody would suggest that the House of Commons is made up of superlative people. We are just a cross-section of the people. In this argument, we must prove that they are worse than anybody else. It is no use saying that they are better.

Mr. Walden: I do not suspect the hon. Gentleman, any more than he suspects me, of being a scientist or technologist. If they are to have any value in the House of Commons, politicians should be, or should try to become, expert in politics. This is what I revolt against. I revolt against the conception, which is becoming more widespread and which has been encapsulated in the caption, that there are people uniquely gifted to advise us about practically anything who are called technologists and scientists.
I know where that heresy started. It started for purely political purposes, for winning votes. It is coming to be accepted by everybody, which is very bad.

Dr. Winstanley: The new Clause means that a plumber is uniquely gifted to advise people about plumbing and that an electrician is uniquely gifted to advise people about electrical matters. It merely itemises different schools of thought and expertise.

Mr. Walden: I gladly concede that. But we are talking about the appointment of legislators. It would be a very bad system if we were to appoint a man to the other place simply on the ground that in an emergency he would know how to unblock the lavatories. That is not a particularly good basis on which to select legislators.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: There was the famous case of Mr. Belloc's Lord Finchley.
who tried to mend the electric light,
It struck him dead and serve him right.
It is the duty of the wealthy man
To give employment to the artisan.

Mr. Walden: That is a relevant and witty quotation. But the right hon. Gentleman will note his own quotation. It is exactly that sort of distinction which I do not wish to see made in the other place. I do not want legislators who understand about politics and technology, artisans who will advise but also themselves be legislators. That is a recipe for producing another place of a kind which we shall not like.

Mr. Sheldon: Would not my hon. Friend concede that there is a case for such people to be represented?

Mr. Walden: Yes, that enables me to continue with the point that I was about to make on the Clause. I do not say that we should not have—it would be difficult to avoid having—representatives in the other place of science, technology, industry, commerce and the professions, but I never knew that the House of Lords was deficient in members of industry, commerce and the professions. I had formed the naïve view that many of them had a great knowledge of all three.
But that will not do any more, because they suffer under the blight of being able to delay us, which we could get rid of easily without any of this rigmarole, and are also hereditary peers. That is a double curse upon them and therefore they must go. The new Clause now


suggests people by whom we might replace them. What interests me is the method which will be adopted. It is not suggested that the scientists, technologists and representatives of industry, commerce and the professions should be elected by any general body. This is not a question of indirect election of specialists by the people. They will be elected by their own groups.
I am not one to throw abusive words around, but one could reasonably, in no pejorative sense, regard the groups, in that context, as being oligarchies. In other words, the suggestion is that, having got rid of the abominable principle of aristocracy which is intolerable to the Government, we will replace it, if new Clause 11 is accepted, by the principle of selection from oligarchies by oligarchs.
That is not a good idea, and I do not care whether Churchill was for it or the Doge of Venice or Salazar or Mendes-France or any of these distinguished people was for it. It introduces an element into the British legislative system which has been the subject of condemnation by equally distinguished men.
For instance—if I am wrong, perhaps I will be corrected by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) who could make his maiden speech on today's important business by telling me—I think that Disraeli himself, who has some claim—indeed, I believe, an overwhelming claim—to have founded the modern Tory Party, bitterly resented the presence of oligarchy in British public life. He felt that the House of Commons should be broadly democratic and that the franchise should be widened to enable it to be so and that the House of Lords should enshrine the hereditary principle. He trusted the aristocracy and the ordinary people, but he distrusted the oligarchs. I think that he was right: so do I. I do not wish to deceive the Committee. I am not pretending that I agree with Disraeli's view of the House of Lords, but I agree with him in having a fundamental distrust of oligarchy.
I have some sympathy with new Clause 11 and I will grant this to those who put it down. The worst possible system is that people, whether distinguished or not, whether technologists or not, should

be selected by the two Front Benches. That is absolutely the worst system. Nor is it true that the most distinguished men would be selected. One has only to look at those who are selected and whom one is brazenly told are the best representatives of their profession—I am thinking particularly of economists—to realise that this is an absolute nonsense. Most of the distinguished economists in this country have never come near the Government in terms of advisers. Nor would they have much chance of entering the other place.
I speak for a profession of which I have some knowledge, but I have a deep suspicion, based on what people who are eminent in their own professions tell me about them. My brother-in-law is a distinguished physician and he has considerable doubts about whether eminent members of the medical profession would be attracted to this peculiar institution which it is intended to create.
So that is the worst system, at least the movers of the new Clause have suggested something better. They have suggested that the professions themselves select these people. But I do not regard that as a good system. Could I avoid offence, possibly, to hon. Members opposite, as I am anxious to do, by not talking about the professions with which they will be much more familiar than I, but talking simply about something of which I have some knowledge, namely, the trade unions? There are Members on these benches who know more about the trade union movement than I. Nevertheless, I have been a member of a trade union for some time now and I regularly attend meetings. Of course, I know some of the principal personalities in the trade union movement. If it was left to the trade unions to select the people who would go to the other place, I assure the Committee that this would not mean that the liveliest minds in the trade union movement would get there.

Sir D. Glover: We would not get Clive Jenkins.

Mr. Walden: The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) interjects that we would not get Clive Jenkins. That enables me to make a valuable point, of which I hope that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) will take note. I do not agree


with many of the things about which Clive Jenkins speaks. Neither does the right hon. Gentleman. But Clive Jenkins, in his conception of British trade unions, is in many ways a modern minded man. He may displease us on a whole range of things, but he has a view about how unions should operate which is in many ways realistic and much closer to the American pattern, towards which, I suspect, in time we might move.
Equally, though Clive Jenkins deplores and detests many of the views of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has read some of his speeches on incomes policy not with total disagreement. Clive Jenkins is a man who could be affected by new Clause 11. He is a lively minded, highly intelligent man, capable of original thought and with a good deal of independence. Would he get there if the trade unions were allowed to select?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Walden: Of course not. The one man we can be certain they would not let in would be Clive Jenkins.

An Hon. Member: Who are "they"?

Mr. Walden: The trade unions. I am referring to the provisions of new Clause 11, which would enable trade unions to be judges in their own case in selecting their representatives for the House of Lords.
I have great respect for the trade union movement and its leadership, but it suffers from the very defect I was mentioning when talking about the Executive earlier. It suffers from an understandable passion to be represented by safe men. That is what the Executive always wants. It wants a safety factor. It wants safe, respectable men who will put up a good show for the party or for the interest concerned, but who, nevertheless, will not poison the atmosphere by original ideas not previously discussed with the people who really matter. That is what the Executive wants.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House took me to task somewhat. He said that I had been a good strong supporter of the Executive on many occasions and now I had rounded on it. I did not exactly bite the hand that fed me, but that is a much more appropriate

phrase. I may have shown some ingratitude to my right hon. Friend. I do not want him to misunderstand me. I am not convicting the Government of anything that is not done by any group within any profession that possesses power. But no group wants to give any more warrant than it must to radical Committees. People who already have power, often having fought very long to get it, and often having themselves produced many original ideas and progressed in their own subjects, are usually anxious to enjoy the fruits of what they have for some time. They do not want to displace themselves immediately to allow a radical group behind them to move in.
Hon. Members opposite can give me their views, if they wish, about how true this might be of the other professions mentioned, but my view of trade unions is that they would not try to pick the man who would perform the functions that have been mentioned. We would not get people with radical ideas, fresh thought or independent minds. We would not get the kind of people who could split nice distinctions for legislators in the other place who were in some doubt. We would get some extremely respectable, worthy men who have given a lifetime of service to the trade union movement, which is greatly to their credit—I do not say anything against that—but who would be sent there to hold the fort for the trade unions.
I do not want to weary the Committee by going on too long, and I do not want to press the argument too far, but I should like to sum up what I am trying to say.
9.30 p.m.
If I had to choose between what I regard as the blind chance of the aristocratic principle and this kind of new Clause 11 oligarchy, I would take the aristocracy every time. We have had the chance, not merely of studying the history of the other place but of walking across there and listening to its Members, which I have done several times while I have been a Member of this House. I have heard some extremely good speeches—though admittedly there were some bad ones—not from scientists and technologists, but from eldest sons, who had no claim to be there other than that they had inherited a peerage, who


have developed a breadth of mind and tolerance for liberal and new ideas, which is refreshing.
I do not support the principle of aristocracy, and I have never pretended to, but I would rather have them and take that chance than have the kind of oligarchy that will come about by Government appointment, which is the worst of all systems, or the oligarchy that is likely to be enshrined in new Clause 11, whereby professional bodies select their own representative, which will give us far fewer men of independent judgment and of broad liberal concern throughout the field of politics than we get under our present peerage system.
I see no virtue in new Clause 11. I have made it clear now, and previously, that I see no virtue in the Government's system of appointment, either. I am therefore forced back to what I said earlier. Faced with a choice, I prefer what we have. I think that it is better than anything that is suggested from either of the Front Benches, or in new Clause 11.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: I found the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) extremely convincing. Although I am certain that the Committee is very much indebted to my hon. Friends for the extremely interesting debate which they have initiated, I find myself in some difficulty in supporting them. I am pushed to this point of view not merely by reason of the fact that the Amendment has the unprecedented advantage of support from windy corner—

Sir C. Osborne: Wet corner.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend must not proceed towards indelicacy.

Sir D. Glover: My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is only drawing attention to the fact that that is why the Liberal Party is now supporting the plumbers.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that yesterday the Liberal Chief Whip made a full statement on that matter and that it would be impertinent on my part to add to it.
I think that the Amendment poses an interesting idea. To begin with I was attracted by the concept of getting into the new Upper House anything which involved an element composed of people who were not nominated either by right hon. Gentlemen opposite or by my right hon. Friends. I am certain that the fundamental weakness of the Upper House proposed in the Bill is that it depends on nomination. Prima facie, therefore, my hon. Friend's concept of bringing in an element which at least is not dependent on the party leaders is attractive.
However, I think that there is great force in what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), when he asked who these distingushed professional bodies would select. They would, of course, select good representatives of the interests of the profession. The Law Society, for example, would put forward someone who would advocate, in season and out, the right of audience for solicitors at quarter sessions. The Bar Council would put forward somebody who could be relied on to controvert that insidious doctrine with equal vigour and determination. One would get people who, after election by the professions, would regard themselves not primarily as Members of the Upper House of Parliament, but as people whose duty it was to look after the interests of the professions, and who would probably feel that, if they did not stand up for the interests of those professions, almost regardless of the public interest, they would not be elected again.
If my hon. Friend's proposal had been to include in an Upper House ex officio holders of certain offices connected with the arts, sciences and professions, I should have been much more attracted to it. There is a case, if only from the point of view of getting away from the dead hand of nomination, for having some Members who owe their membership of another place to some independent support. If the proposal had been to include, say, the chairman of the Arts Council, the president of the Royal Society, the chairmen of most of the professional bodies, I should have regarded that as a singularly attractive idea. But the idea of election, not by the electorate as a whole but by the necessarily—I mean this in no offensive sense—interested bodies of certain sections and professions,


would not give us the sort of contribution which we want.
If I am presented with the alternative of a House solely of nominees or a House of nominees diluted by some such element as is now proposed, I am somewhat embarrassed in making up my mind. But if we are presented, as the hon. Member for All Saints put it, with a choice between this proposal and the present setup, I am in no difficulty at all. It is the merit of another place under its present constitution that it already includes—to quote the Amendment—
representatives of science, technology, the arts, industry, agriculture, commerce, finance and the professions"—
and representatives not in the sense that they are representatives owing a duty to those disciplines but in the sense that they are themselves admirable representatives of the arts and sciences involved.
Therefore, rather than contrive this sort of election, with its emphasis on—let us face it—vested interest, I would infinitely prefer the present set-up with its independence and its authority. I invite the attention of the Committee to the White Paper. The Government themselves, in paragraph 8(a), put forward as the first of the main functions of another place,
the provision of a forum for full and free debate on matters of public interest ".
I do not believe that an Upper House constituted as the Bill at present proposes will produce such a forum. The Leader of the House knows that as well as anyone. It will provide a narrow, restricted forum for strictly party debate with a result mathematically predetermined before the debate has begun.
We want in the other place—here I agree with my hon. Friend's approach—representatives of the whole wide sweep of the activities, the genius, the intelligence and the knowledge of this country. We do not need the Amendment for that purpose. They are there already. What we need to do is to resist the Government's attempt to throw them out.

Mr. Howie: I have been thrown into some difficulty by this Amendment. I am no friend of the Bill. I am anxious to assist in every way to improve it, and I try where possible to support any Amendment which, as the Attorney-General might put it, comes within my ambit. Moreover, I am a scientist and/or technologist,

and, consequently, I am anxious to ensure that scientists and technologists are represented in another place.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Be careful. The hon. Gentleman might find himself there.

Mr. Howie: I shall come to that in a few moments. This is about the right time in the process of the Bill, I suppose, for us to put our applications in. I am, as I say, anxious to promote the interests of scientists and technologists. [Interruption.] I have not really started yet.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that more than three-quarters of his own party have already put in their applications.

Mr. Howie: I dare say that that is correct, but some will go in with greater force and more likelihood of being accepted than others. I am anxious to promote science and technology in Parliament and elsewhere. Although I agree with much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden), once or twice during his interesting speech he showed exactly that kind of intolerance to scientists and technologists which is shown by the worst sort of scientists when they are faced with public questions, although I agree with his general stricture that when scientists apply their scientific minds to public questions they are no better than the rest of us, or no better than the hon. Gentleman opposite.
We want people who understand science in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords, by which I mean not practising scientists who are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said, up-to-date. Even a reformed House of Lords is not likely to be a learned society; their debates, in so far as they touch on science, will not be the kind of debates found in a learned society, but debates in which a background knowledge of science might well be of interest.
My hon. Friend also said that scientists who enter politics are not necessarily fully up-to-date, but I am not sure that this is strictly true. I spent a considerable part of yesterday afternoon in another part of the building with two civil engineers who were bringing me up-to-date on the


latest developments in pre-stressed concrete. I am sorry to say that by doing so I missed a considerable part of the interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, but I heard enough of it during the one and a half hours when I was here to catch the general drift of what he was saying.
Such specialist scientists, technologists and men of commerce and learning as we require in the House of Lords or in the House of Commons should be there because they are politicians, as my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints, has said, not as specialists or as general practitioners to take our pulse. They should be there as politicians who have made their way into one or other Chamber through the party machine or through activity in politics. The only way to become a legislator is actually to become one in the hard way by fighting until eventually one finds oneself there. It is not possible to land there as a representative of a special interest. This means that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), who moved the Amendment, is perhaps doing the wrong thing although with the best intentions. I know well his interest in these matters.
The real job of political technologists and scientists is to interest other scientists and technologists in politics, and to draw them into politics, so that they come through the organism of politics into the Legislature.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: What my hon. Friend and I were trying to do was to bring into the House of Lords this wide spectrum of a large number of people who, as Lord Bryce said during the Bryce Commission proceedings, would be of a non-partisan nature, of a calm judgment and not necessarily politicians.

Mr. Howie: I am quite sure, as I have said, that the Amendment is put forward with the best intentions. That intervention brings me to my next point.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Twickenham should regard engineers, technologists and scientists as non-partisan. As a civil engineer, I had a unique experience in this matter. I was twice defeated for electoral office by other civil engineers, once for Hendon Borough Council and once for Middlesex Borough Council. Fortunately, a civil engineer

has never stood against me at a Parliamentary election. They are not nonpartisan. They have the same political and social attitudes as other people.
I understand that there are about 60,000 members of the Institution of Civil Engineers and about 60,000 doctors. That suggests that, in the reformed Chamber, they would, under the proposal we are discussing, be entitled to one man each, or two at the most. They could probably achieve that number by sheer luck. Yet new Clause 11 suggests that up to a maximum of one-third of the total, which may be about 100, should be set aside for experts of this kind.

9.45 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: Bearing in mind that an hon. Member of this place needs about 60,000 supporters in his electorate and considering that there will be about 230 Members in another House, would not one-third of a man be the right proportional representation for the purposes that he is discussing?

Mr. Howie: Even in this modern scientific age one is about the smallest unit one could have in the House of Lords, certainly from the point of view of useful contributions to debates being made. The number specified in new Clause 11 would, therefore, appear to be more than is necessary.

Mr. Walden: That new Clause refers to the total voting membership of the reformed House. Perhaps my hon. Friend should bear in mind that each representative could receive one-half or one-third of a vote, which would be more practicable than the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) of having one-third of a man.

Mr. Howie: That is an interesting proposition. A man with one-third of a vote would be preferable to a man with no vote at all, although not as good as one man with one whole vote. Perhaps my hon. Friend's suggestions could be applied to the House of Commons.

New Clause 11 suggests that the representatives of the reformed Chamber should be elected by the various societies, associations and bodies of which they are members. This is an interesting idea at first sight, but having for some time been a member of the Council of


the Institution of Civil Engineers, I am not so sure. As the members of that institution sometimes read the remarks I make here, I must not say anything harsh or embarrassing about them, not that I would wish to do so. However, my experience of such a body hardly suggests that it would be likely to be a better electoral machine than even the system of nomination which my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints abominates.

These bodies are formed of excellent people who hold interesting debates in their own spheres, but I do not believe that their qualifications are appropriate for the job we have in mind. Leaving aside the question of party advantage, I am not certain that this would be a fruitful sphere for political debate, but I will not go into that now. While I am anxious to improve the Bill and support any Amendment which makes for improvement, I cannot support this one.

Sir C. Osborne: While the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) is desperately anxious to improve the Bill, he will be aware that the Measure has been damned by the faint praise of its supporters and cursed by its opponents. It is a dogs-body of a Bill that even this Amendment cannot improve. It is time that the Government took it away, buried it and produced something better. That is my preamble.

Sir D. Glover: A better preamble than the one in the Bill.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: And a shorter one.

Sir C. Osborne: The Amendment sets out a number of experts who should be elected to the House of Lords, because they are experts and for no other reason. I was taught many years ago that an expert is an ordinary person from another county and that an expert is not necessarily a superman when dealing with ordinary political matters. We should remember that Parliament's job is to deal with politics. A technologist, civil engineer or scientist cannot have a better insight into the political troubles and problems which we must face than an ordinary person.
I reject the idea that because a man has half-a-dozen wonderful degrees and a string of letters after his name—and because he may be old and senile—he is

necessarily better qualified to deal with political matters than most of us here.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Has my hon. Friend ever had the experience of cross-examining experts? If he has, he will know that for an expert fee almost any expert is prepared to contradict another. In those circumstances, perhaps he would increase his condemnation of experts as independent persons.

Sir C. Osborne: I am much obliged for that support.

The new Clause states that there should be representatives of trade unions. The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) made a great point of this. When Mr. Frank Cousins made his last speech here from the third bench below the Gangway, I remember him saying dramatically that power would not rest in this House but outside. Here was one of the most distinguished members of the trade union movement who scorned this House and all it stood for, and said that the real power in industrial matters would be outside this House, that they would not be decided here. If men of that eminence in the trade union world treated this House with such scorn, is it reasonable to suggest that they would go to the gilded Chamber and treat it with greater respect? It is ridiculous to think that they would waste their time by going there.

Therefore, everything behind the Amendment seems completely absurd. I believe that most great trade unions do not allow their general secretaries to be Members of this House. If the most active man in a powerful trade union is precluded by the rules of his union from being a Member of this House, is it reasonable to suggest that the trade unions would allow them to go down the corridor, and that they would be willing to go down the corridor to a Chamber—[Laughter.]—I am glad that I am amusing my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Is it reasonable to suggest that men of this eminence outside this House would go to a Chamber where there is no power—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Just wind, I am told.

Sir C. Osborne: It seems to me that this is just the sort of scheme that a


clever dick from a university—[Laughter.]—if my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West does not like the allusion to a clever dick, I will say "Smart Alec". Thinking of the author of the Bill, I thought that the other name was much more appropriate and to the point. Only a very clever man who is out of touch with the ordinary realities of life would make that suggestion.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I made it, damn it all.

Sir C. Osborne: To that intervention, I say, if the cap fits, wear it.

The Amendment would not improve a bad Bill. I do not think that the people whom the Clause would tempt to go to the other House would be the sort that could make the contribution the authors of the Clause think they could. Take the part of industrial activities that I know something about. I should guess that industry would send the past presidents of this that or the other, retired people who are past their best—

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The I.R.C. boys.

Sir C. Osborne: Not the young active men, who would not waste their time giving advice to a lot of people who would not take any notice of them.
Therefore, it is a bad Amendment to an even worse Bill. I say to the Leader of the House, "For goodness' sake take it back and bring something better."

Sir D. Glover: I gather that in this debate we are allowed to have a preamble to our speech, just as the Bill has. I do not want to detain the Committee, except to say that I believe that Parliament could have made several decisions. The first would be to leave the second Chamber as it is. It has many advantages and virtues that I fear we shall regret losing when we have done something with the Bill. I accept what the hon. Mem-

ber for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) said, that we cannot justify the hereditary principle on any basis, but so far it works.

The second decision would be to produce an elected Chamber. I am surprised that the Government, who are supposed to be radical, did not introduce an elective system in the Bill, if they are to reform another place. We now have the worst of all possible worlds, which does not make sense to anybody.

My hon. Friends who produced the Amendment did so in an attempt to remove in a minor degree some of the evils in the Bill. I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and the others who have spoken, but I cannot go along with them on the Amendment.

The debate has been very interesting, and I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. Member for All Saints. If the party opposite wants any chance of winning an election, the sooner it puts the hon. Gentleman into its counsels the better it will be for the party. He is by far the most outstanding man on the back benches opposite, and I cannot understand a party in the position of the Labour Party ignoring his abilities. We have heard a lot about people being politicians.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

The House divided: Ayes 141 Noes 51.

Division No. 81.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Crawshaw, Richard


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchan, Norman
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bence, Cyril
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Carmichael, Neil
Dalyell, Tam


Blackburn, F.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhonnda, E.)


Booth, Albert
Coe, Denis
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Coleman, Donald
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Brooks, Edwin
Concannon, J. D.
Dempsey, James


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Conlan, Bernard
Dobson, Ray




Doig, Peter
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Dunnett, Jack
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Rees, Merlyn


Eadie, Alex
Lawson, George
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Ellis, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rowlands, E.


Ennals, David
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Ensor, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius


Ford, Ben
Macdonald, A. H.
Small, William


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Fowler, Gerry
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Gardner, Tony
Mackintosh, John P.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Maclennan, Robert
Taverne, Dick


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thornton, Ernest


Gregory, Arnold
Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)
Tinn, James


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Manuel, Archie
Tuck, Raphael


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Maxwell, Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Milian, Bruce
Varley, Eric G.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hannan, William
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wallace, George


Harper, Joseph
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hazell, Bert
Murray, Albert
Whitaker, Ben


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hirst, Geoffrey
Oakes, Gordon
Wilkins, W. A.


Hobden, Dennis
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan (Swansea, w.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Howie, W.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Winnick, David


Hoy, James
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Huckfield, Leslie
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred



Hunter, Adam
Pentland, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Mr. John McCann and


Janner, Sir Barnett
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Mr. Neil McBride.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)






NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hill, J. E. B.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Russell, Sir Ronald


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hooson, Emlyn
Sharples, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Smith, John (London & W'minster)


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Crouch, David
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lubbock, Eric
Temple, John M.


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
MacArthur, Ian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Eden, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Waddington, David


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Monro, Hector
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Eyre, Reginald
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Neave, Airey
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Younger, Hn. George


Glover, Sir Douglas
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch



Gresham Cooke, R.
Pym, Francis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES;


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke and


Hay, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Sir D. Glover: When we were interrupted I was explaining my preamble. I pointed out that there were three courses which the House could take on the question of the other place. One was to have an elected Chamber, the second was to leave well alone—

Mr. Robert Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. I find it difficult

to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) because of the deal of noise going on on the bench behind me.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Perhaps the Committee will hear the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) in silence.

Sir D. Glover: I presume that, at some time, the Committee will be disturbed by the noise of the cistern from the Liberal Bench. I come now to the main point of what I want to say.
I welcome the Amendment because it has a desirable objective—to produce a semi-independent element in the other place, divorced from the patronage of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. This has attracted me because, under the Bill as it stands, we shall have a very mysterious House of Lords. It will not have very much dignity nor much viability in the eyes of the nation. It will not enjoy the respect that the present Chamber has. It will lose a great deal of its authority on big subjects and it will lose on the breadth of its debates. This is because it will be a rather petty, unimportant Chamber almost entirely dominated by the executives of the two main parties.
But I cannot support the Amendment because, when one begins to appoint people to a legislative function because they represent narrow segments of our society, one immediately runs into great difficulties. The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie), who is not in his place—

Mr. Howie: I am here.

Sir D. Glover: I said that the hon. Gentleman was not in his place. He is not in the place in which he usually is. He is moving slowly up the passage. I understand that he is ready to put in a bid.
The hon. Member and the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden), said, "We want politicians". I accept that. But I think that they both, rightly, avoided saying that the sort of politicians we want are not the politicians of a narrow segment. The head of the medical profession is a better fighting politician in medical affairs—

Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend will be aware that my father is President of the British Medical Association. I think that he has met my father and that he will agree that he is not a bitter partisan in any sense of the word and is not a strong Tory, Socialist, or anything else.

Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I willingly withdraw any reflection on his esteemed father. But from what he says, he seems to be a classic example of the cross benches. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is pushing a bit, but I think that his

father is now at the head of the queue. I know my hon. Friend's father, who is a wonderful character. But I also know people who are in scientific or other specialist bodies and who, in those affairs, are more ruthless—

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: And tyrannical.

Sir D. Glover: —and more tyrannical than any body of politicians, even when they are debating across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Howie: I must object. The people the hon. Gentleman is referring to are extremely benign.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman is equally making a case against the Amendment. If they are so benign that they have no views, they will not be much use in another place. If they are narrow partisans only, they will be very dangerous in another place. Both our arguments apply.

Mr. Howie: But they operate in a benign way.

Sir D. Glover: I think that perhaps the hon. Gentleman is right, because some of the most ruthless of people are very benign. During the Inquisition, most of the inquisitors had tears running down their faces when condemning people to the stake. Those on the other side in the counter-Reformation also had tears running down their faces. They said, "This hurts us more than it hurts you." But they were still ruthless, and I think that it would be dangerous to have a large element in the other place who were only interested in narrow, sectional interests.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would their Lordships be permanently in tears, like Lord Lundy?

Sir D. Glover: I do not want to be anti-sabbatical on Ash Wednesday.
We know from our experience that the expert is a dangerous person in our debates. We may be too polite to say so, but we always feel that he is speaking from a narrow point of view, perhaps with an axe to grind, and his views are not taken nearly as much notice of as those of a person speaking from general knowledge. We are always suspicious of experts.

In this Amendment it is suggested that we put people into this altered place—I will not say reformed, because it is an altered second Chamber not a reformed second Chamber. I am sure that we would be producing an even worse Chamber than the present Bill will produce if we put such people in. I cannot see this reformed Chamber working with any satisfaction, nor can I see it obtaining any respect from the nation, which is very important.

Subconsciously, both sides of the Committee feel that we should have tackled this problem to produce a viable second Chamber, respected and understood, on an elected basis. Instead, we are so hag-ridden by the history of the other place and our own history that we are terrified of building up a parallel power to ourselves. This is why the two Front Benches have come along with this wet alternative. They do not want any other power to control the Executive; they do not want to produce any machinery that can do so; they do not want any machinery that can give time for a decision of the House of Commons to be reconsidered by another Chamber elected on similar lines or with similar authority.

Because of this, we go along with this wet, insane absurdity called the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. It is not a Parliament (No. 2) Bill, it is something that no one outside of a madhouse would have invented. We want to produce a façade to show that we still have a second Chamber, but it is not to have any influence—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the Amendment before the Committee.

Sir D. Glover: I apologise. I know that I was treading rather widely, but it is difficult not to do so when one has such strong emotions. It is difficult, when one is dealing with an absurdity, not to keep saying so. I am sure that my hon. Friend moved this Amendment in an attempt to bring in something which would be a protection against patronage by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. In practice it would produce an even worse amalgam of people, a Chamber that would operate even less satisfactorily than under the present proposals. If it comes to a Division I regret that I shall not be able to support the Amendment.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I ought to declare an interest in this group of Amendments, that of part paternity. Although I have listened with interest to criticisms made, I suggest that some hon. Members who have questioned whether these Amendments have any value are running in blinkers, and are not sufficiently aware of the needs of the moment. This Committee has changed in character since we began last week and it has turned into a constitutional conference. It probably should have been held elsewhere, in quite different circumstances. What has been good about it is that it has followed non-party lines and one would find it hard to define how Party bias has come into the speeches. Generally it has also been an extremely good-natured discussion, but it has been a singularly ill-organised one. I do not imply any criticism of the Chair, but I do criticise the way the Bill has been brought before Parliament.
When I rise to speak I am torn between being criticised for taking up the time of the Committee, and an anxiety to take this opportunity, which may be the only one for a long time, to exchange ideas with people who are seriously interested in constitutional reform, and in this basic reform which the Government have in mind. If the ideas behind this group of Amendments seem to be insufficiently worked out, it is because we have so far given insufficient consideration to the issues raised by the Bill. I hope to do something to rectify that.
The idea of the other place being made into a house of industry or a place where the professions and the arts can be represented is by no means new. It is already built in to the existing constitution of the other place. Many hon. Members have talked of the other place as though it were an exclusively hereditary body, but from early times the House of Lords has included people who were there by virtue of their profession or status and not because of heredity. I refer to the small and distinguished body of Law Lords and the Bishops.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a pity that there are no Spiritual

Lords representing Scottish denominations?

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. That is a point with which I shall try to deal.
Already the development of our constitution has foreseen the need to get away from the hereditary principle and to bring into the House of Lords people who could speak for particular activities and bring gifts which were not necessarily found among people there by virtue of succession. All that we ask in these Amendments is that we should allow this trend to go further. It is obvious from what has been said by my hon. Friends that we are anxious to secure organic change and the natural development of the constitution. It is not out of place to refer to the fact that what we are recommending is already embodied in the constitution of the House of Lords. All that we ask is that we should explore the possibility of taking this trend further.
We are concerned here with a very big subject—the modernisation of Britain. It is not wrong that we should start by modernising what goes on in the Palace of Westminster. It is not difficult to see ways in which we could improve the functioning of the Palace of Westminster. If we were to take advice from work study experts about how we should conduct this particular debate, we could learn a great deal. However that may be, we are concerned with rectifying the faults in the constitution which have developed. It has got stuck. Insufficient has been done to allow the forces at work in the country to find their corresponding echo within this building. In other words, we have allowed ourselves to get out of date. The Bill gives us the opportunity to do something about that and these Amendments are a way of putting forward specific recommendations as to what we should do.
It is possibly impertinent for someone so recently elected to the House of Commons as myself to get up in front of such a distinguished body of Members and a surprisingly large representation on the Government Front Bench and put forward his point of view. But possibly it has this merit only, that the shades of the prison house have only recently begun to close round this particular Member.


If I think back only a few months, I can still remember what it feels like to be a member of the general public and not to have the right to speak in this building
The composition of the House of Commons does not cover all the constituencies which it is necessary to represent if we are to embody within the Palace of Westminster everything that is best in British life. It is self-evident that our constitution brings to the House of Commons regional representatives because our constituencies are purely territorial. For that reason, I am not certain how far I am prepared to go along with the idea that in the other place as well there should be a large number of regional representatives. The danger of that is that we should turn it into an echo chamber of this one, whereas we want it to be able to make a contribution to the constitution which we are not able to make here. I do not use the term "constituencies" in the narrow sense of areas on the map defined by the Bounday Commission. I refer to groups in the electorate which have a voice, or should have a voice, and are able to contribute something of real value to our national life.
10.30 p.m.
I know that suggestions have been made from the Government Front Bench that certain hon. Members are trying to take up the time of the Committee in order to kill the Bill. I say, in all sincerity, that that is not true of myself. I acknowledge that there is a real need for a Bill, but not this one as it stands. I think that the Bill, with the good will of the Government, could still become a good one.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the Amendment. He is getting a bit wide of it.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I am trying to attract the Government's attention to the need to take these Amendments seriously, because I do not think that they are showing any very clear signs of doing so yet. I trust, Mr. Gourlay, that you will allow me to pursue my argument.
What has gone wrong with the Bill? I think that inadequate thought and

time has gone into its preparation and that a mistake has been made in that it has been evolved by a huddle of Front Benchers who have forgotten the necessity to take into account the opinion of their back benchers. I hope that the present situation may be a lesson that, on the back benches, too, we may wish to make a contribution, however inadequate, wrong-headed, or jejune.
I think, too, that one of the things that has gone fundamentally wrong with the Bill is that in the other place their Lordships have got used to carrying out their existing diminished functions. Therefore, the Bill that has emerged, in so far as their ideas have coloured it, has completely eliminated the body of thought which we have tried to incorporate in these Amendments. It seems that in the other place they have lost sight of what they should be doing and who they should be. I know that a number of peers were horrified at the thought that outsiders, as they see them—that is, people from the arts, industry, trade unions and so on—should be drafted in. I do not wish to make a pun, but I think that they need a wind of change. I should like to see these people drafted in.
We are presented now with a weak and inconsequent Bill which has two major deficiencies. First, it does not attempt to fill the gaps which are identifiable in our constitution. It is commonplace in the Press, but also in the country among people of influence and judgment, that there is a tremendous gap between politics and industry and commerce. There is a yawning chasm. People who feel that they have something to give in the trade unions, in industry, in commerce and in places of eminence in British public life, feel that they can no longer shout across the gap and make their voices heard in Westminster.

Mr. Lubbock: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that people outside in the trade unions, industry, commerce, the arts, technology and so on, would think us utterly mad to have spent so long on the Bill and to be contemplating spending many hours more on it?

Mr. Orme: The Liberals are party to it.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I do not think that any man of judgment would think the House of Commons was wrong to spend enough time over—

Mr. Maude: A major constitutional change.

Sir B. Rhys-Williams: I should like to adopt my hon. Friend's words. We must face the fact, even if we do not like it, that there has been a breakdown of communications within our democratic life. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who I know sees himself as a Tom Paine-ite and believes that unicameral government is likely to bring this country nearer to democracy than any other system; but he must put forward his own solution as to the way in which this chasm is to be bridged. Although I have listened with the greatest interest to what the hon. Gentleman has said today, I do not feel that he has put his genius to work to make a constructive suggestion which would do what we, in however inadequate a way, are trying to achieve by this group of Amendments.
I do not feel that democracy is being well served by the present organisation of the party system, and it is not only the revolting students who feel that their voices cannot get through to the Establishment. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will agree with me when I say that there is a deep sense of frustration and unease in the country generally, and that it is our primary duty in the House of Commons to do something about this and to make constructive suggestions.
The other problem to which the Bill ought to be addressing itself, but is not, is the breakdown of the honours system. It has now become a regular feature in the Press every New Year's day to write articles saying how contemptible the honours system has become.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must try to relate his remarks more directly to the Amendment, and not to go as wide as he is doing at the moment.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Mr. Gourlay, once again I implore you to be patient with me. I have not tried to contribute to the debate for anything like the length

of time that some hon. Members have done, and if you will hear me out you will see that my remarks—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. In trying to explain to the Committee the reasons for his speech the hon. Member is wasting time.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: When I say that the honours system has broken down, I am regarding the peerage as one of the central features of it, and we are discussing who ought to be entitled to have the honour of sitting in the other place. I think that the honours system will become still more corrupt and more decrepit if the men who find their way to the other place are safe men, chosen because they will commit themselves in advance to follow the party line dictated from this House.
If the honours system is to be brought back—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. We are not discussing the honours system on this Amendment which deals with the election of people representing certain professions. I wish that the hon. Member would direct his remarks to that end.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I believe that in professional life the accolade of the peerage is one of the things for which men work. It is one of the things which motives a man to get a good name among his fellows in his profession, and I think that it is very important that our Constitution should recognise that natural feature. It is not disgraceful for a man to wish to want recognition from his fellows. I think that the accolade given by the Sovereign to people in public life—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to have regard to the remarks of the Chair. We are discussing, not the honours system, but Amendment No. 182.

Mr. John Hall: On a point of order. I wonder, Mr. Gourlay, whether you would give us some guidance. I understood that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) was giving reasons why representatives of science, technology and the arts might be persuaded to go into the House of Lords. He was going through


the whole background of this and suggesting that if we were to downgrade the honours system it would be difficult to get representatives of that kind who he considers are essential to the operation of the House of Lords. With great respect to your Ruling, that does not seem to be out of order.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order. I submit that the effect of these Amendments is to provide means whereby persons eminent in various walks of life might be members of the future reformed House of Lords. One reason why we are faced with this difficulty, and are considering these Amendments at all, is that there would not be the same use of patronage to confer peerages on such persons under the new system. I would therefore most respectfully suggest that that is the background to the Amendments which are being considered.

The Deputy Chairman: There is some substance in the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, although incidental references to those aspects may be made in the debate, to take them at great length is to abuse the rules of procedure.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I am anxious to abide by your Ruling, Mr. Gourlay, so I shall not pursue those matters, though I had a good deal more to say about them.
I come now to what I describe as—in inverted commas—the "constituencies" which should be entitled, in my view, either to elect people or to suggest people for the other place. I shall go through the list briefly. I consider that the professional bodies ought to be represented in the Palace of Westminster. They ought not to be obliged to go to public relations firms to make their voices heard in this building. I am thinking, for example, of the Royal Society, to which reference has already been made. I am thinking of the accountants, the engineers, to whom the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) quite properly referred. I think also of the surgeons, the architects, and so on. These are all people who are contributing in their own way to our national life. They are organised in professional "constituencies" which are recognised, but not at Westminster.

Mrs. Ewing: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I should like him to explain whether, in mentioning those bodies, he means the Scottish and the English bodies separately or just the English bodies.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Not knowing Scotland very well, I would rather leave it to the hon. Lady to speak for Scotland. I hope that she will. We shall be glad to hear her voice.

Mrs. Ewing: Not in favour of this proposition.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: There are industrial bodies which also ought to be represented. It is wrong that trade unionists should have to wait to come through the political gateway to make their way to the other House. This tends to lend a rather unfortunate political character to the trade union movement. It would be a good thing if the trade unions were able to disaffiliate themselves from the party machines which have taken charge in this House, and one of the surest ways of securing that end would be to give them the right of voice in Westminster in their own characters and not in the character of spokesmen of any particular party.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Should they vote as well as speak?

Sir B. Rhys Williams: On an earlier Amendment, I commented critically on the "voteless wonders", and I am certainly not one who considers that there should be a two-tier House. In making my recommendation as to who should be there, I add that they should be able to vote and be entire Members.

Dame Irene Ward: At some time or other, somewhere or other, could we have it suggested that there should be some ordinary people in the other place? I am rather tired of experts.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I am perfectly willing to accept the suggestion that the House of Lords ought not to consist entirely of people who are there with a particular interest. I consider that people with a particular interest and with particular gifts ought to be able to find their way to the House of Lords as of right, but one does not want to have it solely


given over to experts. My hon. Friend will see that the text of our Amendments would not do that.

Mr. Ridley: As about half the population are female, perhaps half the membership of another place ought to be female, too.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: We have representatives of the other sex here who may be able to speak on that subject more effectively than I.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this fascinating subject of the representation of the trade unions in another place, do I understand him to suggest a one-for-one representation for the professions and the trade unions?

10.45 p.m.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: That might result in a rather heavy representation of the trade unions in another place.

Mr. Russell Kerr: That is why I asked.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I have prepared some remarks, if I may be allowed to come to them, on the question of numbers, and I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point when I get there. [Laughter.] I am very glad, Mr. Gourlay, to notice that my remarks have not caused an outbreak of ill-temper in the Committee.
I have mentioned the industrial bodies and, in particular, the trade unions. It is right that some trade associations should also have a place in the other House. I am not talking only of the C.B.I., but of some of the semi-professional bodies and bodies representing small groups in industry which find it particularly difficult to make their voices heard here.
I mentioned earlier that there were bishops in the House of Lords. There should be other representatives of religious bodies, in recognition of the fact that the Church of England does not command the allegiance of the entire population. It would be perfectly proper for the Roman Catholic Church to be represented in the other place, the Nonconformists, the Presbyterians—

Mr. Robert Cooke: They are already.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: It may be that they are already, but will they be under the Bill? This is what I want reassurance about. It would be perfectly proper too for the Chief Rabbi automatically to find his place there.

Sir D. Glover: My hon. Friend will realise that if the Chief Rabbi goes to the other place the recent Race Relations Act means that the Moslems, the Hindus and everybody else must also be represented.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I cannot comment on my hon. Friend's observations, as I did not hear them.

Sir D. Glover: I was saying, Mr. Gourlay, and I hope my hon. Friend can hear me when I am addressing the Chair with my back to him, that if he wanted the Chief Rabbi in the other place as of right, under the Race Relations Act he would also have to ensure that the Moslems, the Hindus and the Parsees were also represented, otherwise he would be guilty of racial discrimination.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: If I were to advance further views on this subject, I might find myself on rather thin ice.
I would like now to discuss what we mean in the Amendment by representatives of the arts. I hope that you will not suggest I am out of order, Mr. Gourlay, if I say that the universities also should be able to find representation in the other place. I have never been able to find a reason why university members should have voices in the House of Commons, and that is not a recommendation which I would make; but I think it is wrong that they should be excluded from the other place. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not."] They may not be now because the wisdom and maturity of our Constitution is such that we have found our way unconsciously to rectifying its faults, but, unfortunately, we are not finding our way to rectifying faults within the terms of the Bill.
The reason why I am taking up your time, Mr. Gourlay, and that of the Committee, is that I think the Bill should recognise what has been done so far which is good and, if we are seeking to codify the future of the House of Lords, let us codify what is good as well as what is experimental.
Perhaps I will awaken an echo in some parts of this Chamber when I refer also to journalism. Since journalists undoubtedly have much influence, perhaps they too should be represented in the other place. Likewise the public services. The Civil Service should not have to huddle silently in frustration listening to our debates without being able to contribute, except by the back stairs. There are men of great knowledge in our vast Civil Service. This knowledge should not be smothered under the two-party system. Representatives of the Armed Forces should also be in the House of Lords. They are now, but will they be in future?
We must not create another Chamber in our own likeness; a sort of echo chamber. It should of course contain a large number of people with political experience, but if we create an Upper House which is more or less like this one we shall simply be wasting square footage of valuable space. We must not allow it to become a sumptuous, over-decorated annexe of the House of Commons Library. I fear that if we do not write into the Bill the sort of people who should be there, we shall, within a few years, find the place inhabited by people who are subservient to the House of Commons and with virtually no power. With all his patronage, the Prime Minister will not be able to find people of the right calibre to serve under the humiliating conditions which the Bill will impose on them.
I have tried to adduce some constructive ideas. Because of the way in which the Amendments are drafted, this is inevitably a somewhat narrow debate, but I hope that by virtue of these suggestions the other place may once again become—in conjunction with this Chamber, for we must all work together in the same building—the best club in London.

Mr. John Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that to make that possible it will be necessary to change the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee?

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I had an idea that that might be coming from one quarter of the House or another. But I am trying to be serious. I have an idea that I am the only person left in the Committee who is. There is more to a good club than what one eats in it. What

one says and hears in it are probably worth a great deal more than what one eats and drinks in it.
In the course of the few months in which I have had the honour to be a Member of the House of Commons, I do not think I have spent 30 seconds in conversation with a member of the other place. It was only in order to to discover what their Lordships thought about the White Paper that I thought it necessary to acquire a copy of HANSARD recording their debates. I am sorry to say that I do not pay a very great deal of attention to what is reported in public broadcasts or in the newspapers about what is said in the other place. Already it has become largely irrelevant to the main issues of the day. I do not want that situation to continue. I should like the other place to be a place where things are said which are not said in this Chamber because they are said by people quite different from the Members of the House of Commons, then, in contact with them and by reading what they say, we should learn something fresh.
I should like to answer some of the points made in the debate. I do not think it necessary to leave it entirely to the bodies from which we hope to draw representatives to choose their own nominees. I have drawn attention earlier to the new Clause 19, which would have left this matter very much in the hands of the Sovereign under advice. I am not competent to decide in exactly what way it would be wise and advisable to choose people from the different bodies I have mentioned and all the others which hon. Members may have in mind as people who should be represented in the other House.

Mr. Walden: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if we leave it to the Sovereign to take account of advice we shall end up with the worst of all systems, namely, the appointments of the Government Front Bench?

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Nomination by the premierissimo is what we wish to avoid. I would accept any alternative suggestion to the suggestion embodied in the Bill, namely, that the Prime Minister, in cahoots with the Leader of the Opposition, should fix it between themselves more or less in accordance with what is


written in the Preamble, which we have been told by the Attorney-General has no legal force and is purely declaratory.

Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman is saying that rather than have elections from professional bodies, which I regard as an oligarchic system, the Sovereign can take advice and then make appointments from the professional bodies. Would not that mean that naturally the Sovereign would take the advice of the Prime Minister and we should get the worst of all systems: we should get Prime Ministerial appointments from within the professions, which the hon. Gentleman is anxious to avoid?

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I am anxious to avoid the Prime Minister having the final say about who is to appear in the other place. That is why I am trying to write into the Bill a suggestion as to who should feel themselves entitled to be there. If these bodies are powerful bodies, they will be able to exercise some say in what the Prime Minister decides. If the Sovereign is not to be advised by a committee of the Privy Council, let the constitutional experts, of whom there are many on these benches, come forward with a better idea. It is not sufficient to attack the power of patronage which the Bill gives the Prime Minister without putting forward an alternative constructive suggestion. That is what I have tried to do, however ineptly.
11.0 p.m.
Another point has been made that the men who go to the other House would be legislators, and that architects, scientists and technologists are unsuitable as legislators. I do not know why scientists and technologists should have been picked upon as being particularly unsuitable to take part in the life of the Palace of Westminster, because I think any hon. Member who feels that is rather out of touch with events. I agree that a man who has spent his entire time in a laboratory or one of the professions, and has never given a great deal of thought to politics or the way in which we conduct our affairs in this House, would find himself at sea in this House. But that does not mean that he has nothing to give to British life in his own way.
The other House will not be like this one. It will have its own rules. I would

like it to evolve organically so that it will have precedents and members to guide it who will remember how things were done before this Bill goes through and who will be able to advise new members as to how they should conduct themselves. It would be a very limited aim if our concept was that the men who take part in a debate in the other House should take all their rules of order from us, and that their attitude should be modelled on ours. This is a wrong concept of what the other House could become in our national life.
I come back to the contention that these men are going to be legislators. Quite honestly, they are not. They are going to be in something better than an advisory capacity, but not very much more than that. As we continue our debates in this Committee I hope we shall come to another Amendment, which I have sponsored, which would give somewhat more power and credibility to the other place—a degree of authority which they could exercise in an extreme emergency, and only then. But in the normal course of business they are not really legislators. I do not think we see them as initiating legislation in the other place.

Hon. Members: They do now.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I do not think it is envisaged in the Bill, but I am subject to correction on that. This House has become the main initiating chamber. I think that for a very long time it will remain so, and I do not quarrel with that. But to argue against this Amendment that the sort of people who would be brought into the other House would be unsuitable as legislators is a false argument which I do not think stands up in the light of the arguments which I have tried to put forward.
I come now to the question of numbers. I do not think that a House as small as a couple of hundred members is going to be able to form a quorum on the most abstruse matters, and it is precisely their capacity to form a quorum on abstruse matters which will give them a value.
I do not see why they should be limited in their number to 200 or so. I think there should be at least as many members in the other House as there are in this. I envisage that for much the greater part of their time their debates will be


conducted between a handful of people, but they should be people who are really expert in the subject that has been put before them from this House. If one has only 200 people to draw upon, who are earning their money by turning up all the time, we shall find them merely expressing views which have been put up to them by interested bodies which will not themselves be able to be there. I think they should be. I think the other House should be a comprehensible mechanism enabling the Government of the day to take soundings of expert opinion as and when they need to in the ordinary way of business. One could call it a Royal Commission in permanent session, or, to use a modern expression, a Royal Commission in real time, able to contribute at once to our debates here.
In dealing with the question of numbers, I entirely accept the point made by hon. Members of the necessity to include the young. [Interruption.] And possibly young women, too, if they have met the qualifications required under the conditions which I have tried to outline. If, however, total numbers were to be limited too severely, it would be possible to have only one man to represent accountants or the Royal Society or other prominent bodies. It would be better—

Mr. Howie: This general discussion on numbers is extremely interesting, but would it not suit the next Amendment rather better, should we ever reach it?

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I assure you, Mr. Gourlay, that I am trying to cover the ground as briefly as I can.
I hope that the other House will be free from the curse of the party system as it has developed in this House. I would even be willing to consider that the seating arrangements should be changed so as to eliminate the parallel arrangement of benches opposite each other and that there should be some sort of amphitheatre seating which would—

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are not discussing the physical shape or the structure of the other Chamber. We are discussing Amendment No. 182.

Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. Is not my hon. Friend deploying a very powerful argument? The

questions which he is posing are questions of great moral and intellectual difficulty.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I am seized of the hon. Gentleman's point of order. The arguments may be powerful, but they are not relevant to the Amendment.

Mr. Smith: Further to that point of order. Surely, such a matter cannot be dealt with in a glib and abbreviated manner. We must allow my hon. Friend to unfold his theme—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member should not challenge the Chair in that fashion. Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.

Mr. Ridley: Further to the point of order. The Amendment deals with representatives of science, technology, the arts, industry, agriculture, commerce, finance and the professions, so it goes full circle. Surely, Mr. Gourlay, there is an argument of substance for saying that there should be an amphitheatre rather than parallel benches.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Spurious points of order should not be raised.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I think that it is true that people who have studied the constitutions of upper houses in other countries have found merit in the fact that the party system is diminished, if not, perhaps, completely eliminated, in them. I believe that one of the most valuable aspects of this group of Amendments is that it would bring into the Palace of Westminster people who have not had to bow down to the party machine.
There may be many faults with the hereditary system, but at least it had the virtue of bringing into the Upper House people who were not tied by party affiliations. The Bill, at least in its declaratory Preamble, says that in future people will be brought there specifically because of their party affiliations. We are trying to get away from that in the Amendments and to create a House which will not be divided into parallel opposing camps.
I recall that in the White Paper, if not in the Bill, there are a number of references to the value of the cross-benches. It is on very rare occasions


indeed that I have ever ventured into the other place, but my recollection is that there are cross benches there now. I merely suggest that the people who, we envisage, might come in as a result of the Amendments would be more likely to find their place on the cross benches than they would in routine party opposition to each other.
I know that there are bound to be people who are opposed to the ideas which I have tried to argue. I realise for instance, that the Front Benches will not like them. I think they may see that the type of House I think should come into existence would limit their power. Of course, it would but it would do so through the force of democracy. I would bring them fresh ideas. Some people who encounter a fresh idea immediately catch a cold, but the British public wishes us to have fresh ideas, and it is right that our constitutional mechanism should provide a way for them to get into this building.
Many people in the Civil Service would not like it. I do not know that it would be so bad if one or two feathers in Whitehall were ruffled from time to time by the expression of a really expert opinion from a position of authority. But expert opinion at present expressed in universities, trade associations or trade unions may not find an echo in this building and may be wasted.
What has come to be known as the Establishment possibly will not like it, or at any rate large parts of it will not, such as those who will find themselves excluded from the other place because they have said all they have to say and have gone past their usefulness. I will go so far as to say that I hope the Establishment will not like it, because, just as much as one or two hon. Members opposite, I think that it has run the country for far too long. We must do something dramatic to break away from its clutches. But my fear is that some Members of the Establishment will like the Bill. I am afraid that there will be reactionary forces, not necessarily in Westminster but in the country at large, which will look upon the Bill as a relatively tame Measure and will feel that it has been arrived at by agreement between the parties. They will not have read the White Paper or any of our debates, but will feel

that the Bill is moderate in intention and that too much fuss has been made about it in the House of Commons.
I realise that many of the Lords themselves will not like it. But that is immaterial, because if the members of another place were now fulfilling the functions the British people and Constitution require of them there would be no need for change. Hon. Members on both sides agree that there is a need for change, and if what we are trying to change is the members of another place I do not think that we should give too much consideration to what they say. This may be thought a very impertinent expression of opinion, but it is the result of some considerable thought on this subject.
Finally, may I say that I am not in the least afraid of being laughed at by the old hands. I think that our Constitution needs a new deal. The Bill, in spite of the Government's attitude to it to date, could still become a constitutional new deal, and I would not have spoken at such length if I did not still have hopes that it might.

Mr. Peart: Mr. Peart rose—

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: On a point of order. I have been here from 10 o'clock this morning, and three times I have been excluded from the debates today. What way is this to treat a constitutional Measure? It is no good for you to tell me, Mr. Gourlay, that after the Leader of the House has spoken there will be opportunities, because we all know that the Angel of Death has arrived and is sitting in the corner seat on the Front Bench opposite. It is monstrous that at this stage the Leader of the House should seek to terminate a most important debate on a most important principle, which raises the whole problem of the corporate State. I have a great deal to say on this matter, and have been trying to say it for the past 12 hours.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order. There is no reason for the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) to assume that the debate is about to be concluded.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I have listened to the debate from the beginning. I believe the


hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) to have been sincere in his approach. He said that he thought that he ought to suggest a constructive Amendment and he hoped that the Amendment would act as a catalyst in the sense that it would unite the Committee. Opinions have obviously cut across party lines on this issue. I have some sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but, for reasons which I shall explain, the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
The hon. Member wishes to enrich our political life by bringing into a reformed House of Lords men from different walks of life, men with great experience of the professions. He concentrated, as did many other hon. Members, on the place of scientists. It must be remembered that there are already many distinguished scientists in another place, men who have recently been nominated to it and who have made distinctive contributions to it.
On the other hand, I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that we must also think about the ordinary men and women of the community who may have as much common sense in political matters as the distinguished representatives of the professions. We tend to have a little snobbery about this and we ought to heed the hon. Lady's wise advice. To quote Veblen, experts often lack a trained capacity to think. There may be distinguished persons from the professions in another place, but if men are selected by their professions they may not make good representatives in the sense of enriching the life of a reformed House of Lords. Therefore, although I understand the sentiment, I think that we should be cautious.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) who disagreed with the idea of the Amendment on the ground that it was similar to Mussolini's idea for the corporate State. To throw abuse in that sense is wrong. I think that the hon. Member for Twickenham has been genuinely seeking a way out, even though I cannot recommend the Committee to accept it.
Paragraph 30 of the White Paper says:
The 'second tier' would be composed of non-voting peers who would comprise all the other members of the House of Lords. The

existence of this second tier would make it possible to bring into the House created peers who could not attend regularly but who would be able to make valuable contributions from time to time: they would include representatives of the professions, scientists, industrialists, trade unions leaders and other leading members of the community, together with those experienced parliamentarians who had passed the age of retirement. Their presence would enable the House to consider and discuss with authority all aspects of national life.
In a sense, the idea of the Amendment echoes the White Paper, but I believe that the hon. Member's approach would be unworkable.
In addition, it would be wrong to have in another place people who were the nominees of outside bodies. This argument was developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) who, despite his occasional references to collusion between the two Front Benches, made a robust and effective speech. We should be giving responsibility to outside bodies which would, in the end, do the electing. We should be creating, as my hon. Friend rightly said, a new oligarchy. For this reason, I believe it is right to oppose the Amendment, even though I recognise that the views of hon. Members who support it are sincere.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Sir B. Rhys Williams rose—

Mr. Peart: The hon. Baronet made a lengthy speech, to which I listened patiently. He must listen to my reply. I have tried to make my speech much more succinct. For the reasons that I have stated, I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The right hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the Amendment proposes only that a section of the reformed House should be elected in this way. It is unfair to say that that would create an oligarchy.

Mr. Peart: A sectional oligarchy can be as bad as a full one. For the same reasons, I believe that it would be unworkable.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that these interests are already powerful enough? Trade unions, professional organisations, societies and associations have well-paid directors-general or other heads who lobby us and who, in order to keep their


jobs, make themselves a general nuisance all round. They have quite enough power in the State already without our giving them an entrenched position.

Mr. Peart: I accept that in principle. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is supporting me. If we accepted the views of the hon. Members for Twickenham and Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), in the end we should create, as my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints said, an oligarchy. I believe that there should be people with wide experience in the reformed House of Lords, but not necessarily because of experience in a particular profession.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I find myself at this late hour supporting the Leader of the House and, regretfully, unable to support my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). My hon. Friend is full of innovations. He wants to change the date of Christmas Day, amongst other things. Not all his ideas are of equal merit. Nor can I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) said. I was rather left with the impression that it would be a good idea to have a circular "House of Baronets" in the Central Lobby half-way between this House and the House of Lords.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: A very good idea.

Mr. Cooke: Nor do I intend to do battle with my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) over what he said about a certain eminent surgeon who, I can assure him, every weekend gives me a full dose of his views on the politics of both parties.
The interests mentioned in the new Clause and the Amendment are already adequately represented in the Upper House. It will depend upon how the Government operate whatever scheme they succeed in getting enacted. We shall want to know more from the Government about that. The various aspects of national life which are mentioned—industry, trade unions, the chairmen of great companies and the bankers—are already adequately represented in the Upper House, either by peers of the first creation or by hereditary peers.
The Church is represented by the Bishops. The Free Church is represented. There is a Church of England parish priest in the Lords. There is a Roman Catholic priest there. They are in the Upper House already. [AN HON. MEMBER: "By accident."] I hope that the Government will take note of this when they are dealing with the Upper House if they succeed in getting this Bill into law, because in the existing House of Lords they can find much of the representation that the Amendment and the new Clause ask for.
The other professions—for instance, architects—are well represented in the Upper House at present, even by a duke in one case. There are distinguished musicians in the Lords already. The world of design and painting is represented—a Royal Academician sits in the other place. Writers of every kind abound there. The National Theatre and the Arts Council are fully represented. The university teachers are represented. I am not sure whether a way could be found under the proposals in the Clause and the Amendment to secure representation for schoolteachers. They seem to be warring with each other at the moment. Journalism is fully represented. Agriculture is perhaps over-represented. Tourism is fully represented. Television is represented by the chairman of a great company and by an active television producer. The Armed Forces, too, are represented. Even the young students, admittedly through the hereditary principle, are represented, although perhaps the Government can cope with that one.
The present Upper House is very largely representative of every facet of our national life, including the ordinary man in the street. It has, after all, a bus conductor as a hereditary peer. What is wrong with that? It has a former railway employee, who did much the same sort of work on the railways and did it very well. He is a Labour life peer. They are people in ordinary positions in life and they are performing a useful function.
There is a sufficient pool of talent available from which to draw if the Government operate whatever scheme goes through in a sensible way. Some hon. Members do not trust the Government. I still have hope that the Government will make sense of whatever


scheme they get into law. I cannot support the Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin) rose in his place and claimed to move,

That the Question be now put: —

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order.

The Chairman: Order. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

Mr. Heffer: I have sat here for two-and-a-half hours. I have a right to speak.

The Chairman: The Question is, That the Question be now put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 126, Noes 52.

Division No. 82.]
AYES
[11.26 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Hannan, William
Oakes, Gordon


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian


Blackburn, F.
Hazell, Bert
Oswald, Thomas


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Brooks, Edwin
Hooley, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Bob (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, R. W, (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Howie, W.
Pentland, Norman


Buchan, Norman
Hoy, James
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Huckfield, Leslie
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Probert, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Rees, Merlyn


Coe, Denis
Hynd, John
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Coleman, Donald
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rowlands, E.


Conlan, Bernard
Jones. Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Judd, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Small, William


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs, Leslie


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Davies, C. Elled (Rhondda, E.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Taverne, Dick


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tinn, James


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Loughlin, Charles
Urwin, T. W.


Dempsey, James
Lubbock, Eric
Varley, Eric G.


Dobson, Ray
McCann, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunnett, Jack
Macdonald, A. H.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackintosh, John P.
Wells, William (Wasall, N.)



Maclennan, Robert
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ennals, David
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Ensor, David
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ford, Ben
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Forrester, John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Winnick, David


Fowler, Gerry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gardner, Tony
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Woof, Robert


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Charles R. (Opetishaw)



Gregory, Arnold
Moyle, Roland
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Murray, Albert
Mr. Neil McBride.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Noel-Baker,Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hay, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Heffer, Eric S.
Sharples, Richard


Booth, Albert
Howell, David (Gu ldford)
Sheldon, Robert


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Smith, John (London & W'minster)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Taylor, EdwardM.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Cooke, Robert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Waddington, David


Costain, A. P.
MacArthur, Ian
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maude, Angus
Ward, Dame Irene


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Monro, Hector
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Eden, Sir John
Morgan, Geranit (Denbigh)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Norwood, Christopher
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Eyre, Reginald
Oram, Albert E.
Younger, Hn. George


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. John Biggs-Davison and


Glover, Sir Douglas
Pym, Francis
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Gower, Raymond
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Question, That the Amendment be made, put accordingly and negatived.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move,
That the proceedings of the Committee be suspended.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Mr. Gresham Cooke rose—

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Committee report Proceedings suspended.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order

The Chairman: Order. This is one of the Questions which I am required by Standing Order to put forthwith.

The Committee divided: Ayes 129, Noes 39.

Division No. 83.]
AYES
[11.35 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Saltord, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Norwood, Christopher


Archer, Peter
Hannan, William
Oakes, Gordon


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian


Blackburn, F,
Hazell, Bert
Oswald, Thomas


Booth, Albert
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brooks, Edwin
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, Hugh, D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Peart, Rt, Hn. Fred


Brown, Bob (N'c'stle-u-Tyne, W.)
Howie, W.
Pentland, Norman


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hoy, James
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Huckfield, Leslie
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Probert, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hunter, Adam
Rees, Merlyn


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Coe, Denis
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rowlands, E.


Concannon, J. D.
Jones Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lawson, George
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs, Leslie


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Davidson, James (Aberdeen, W.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Taverne, Dick


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tinn, James


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Urwin, T. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lubbock, Eric
Varley, Eric G.


Dempsey, James
McCann, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dobson, Ray
Macdonald, A. H.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Walkins, David (Consett)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Walking, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Eadie, Alex
Mackintosh, John P.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Maclennan, Robert
White Mrs. Eirene


Ennals, David
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Ensor, David
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Winnick, David


Forrester, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Fowler, Gerry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Woof, Robert


Gardner, Tony
Morris, Chartes R. (Openshaw)



Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Moyle, Roland
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gregory, Arnold
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Murray, Albert
Mr. Neil McBride.


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)



NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gower, Raymond
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hay, John
Sharples, Richard


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Howell, David (Guildford)
Smith, John (London & W'minster)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cooke, Robert
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Costain, A. P.
Maude, Angus
Waddington, David


Dalkeith, Earl of
Monro, Hector
Ward, Dame Irene


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Eden, Sir John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Percival, Ian
Younger, Hn. George


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Pym, Francis
Mr. John Biggs-Davison and


Glover, Sir Douglas
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Victor Goodhew.

(Sittings of the House (Suspended Sittings)), That the Proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended.—[Mr. Harper.]

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 33.

Division No. 84.]
AYES
[11.44 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, William
Norwood, Christopher


Archer, Peter
Harper, Joseph
Oakes, Gordon


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hazell, Bert
Oswald, Thomas


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Booth, Albert
Hooley, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brooks, Edwin
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howie, W.
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hoy, James
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Huckfield, Leslie
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Probert, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hunter, Adam
Rees, Merlyn


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kennett (St. P'c'as)


Coe, Denis
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rowlands, E.


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lawson, George
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs Alice
Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs, Leslie


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Taverne, Dick


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tinn, James


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Urwin, T. W.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lubbock, Eric
Varley, Eric G.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McCann, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dempsey, James
Macdonald, A. H.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Dobson, Ray
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mackintosh, John P.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ennals, David
Millan, Bruce
Wilkins, W. A.


Ensor, David
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)




Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Forrester, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Winnick, David


Fowler, Gerry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gardner, Tony
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Woof, Robert


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Moyle, Roland



Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Murray, Albert
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Mr. Neil McBride.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Gower, Raymond
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Howell, David (Guildford)
Smith, John (London & W'minster)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cooke, Robert
MacArthur, Ian
Waddington, David


Costain, A. P.
Maude, Angus
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Dalkeith, Earl of
Monro, Hector
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Osborn, John (Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Eyre, Reginald
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. John Biggs-Davison and


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Pym, Francis
Mr. Victor Goodhew.

LAND COMMISSION

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that I am right in understanding that no hon. Member has at this moment claimed the Adjournment, and I trust, therefore, that I shall be in order in addressing the House briefly on a matter which is of some concern.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Has the hon. Gentleman given notice to any Minister?

Mr. Cooke: There is always some difficulty about this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because if one did give notice the Government would make certain that one never got the chance to raise the matter on the spur of the moment, as it were.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman's answer to my question is "No". I must inform


him that Mr. Speaker has deprecated most strongly any hon. Member speaking on the Adjournment without giving notice. It is only fair that the Department should have an opportunity, and, indeed, I think that it would be improper for a Department to seek to thwart the hon. Gentleman in the way he suggests.

Mr. Cooke: I never suggested that the Department would try to thwart an hon. Member. That would be quite improper, and I am sure that no Department would try to do it. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Government Whips have occasionally not looked with favour on hon. Members who seek chance opportunities to air grievances. I wish just to say a few words on a certain matter, and I shall be scrupulously fair to the Department concerned. When you have heard what I have to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will not, I think, feel that I am in any way departing from the spirit of the Adjournment debate. This will be preliminary to what I shall hope to raise more fully on another occasion.
I wish to speak about the activities of the Land Commission, particularly as they affect the South-West of England, although it has been active in other places as well. I am concerned about the considerable administrative cost of this organisation. I am concerned also that it has not yet managed to acquire much land and its activities have not yet borne considerable fruit. Perhaps the Government can make out a case for the continued existence of this institution. Perhaps not. However, I wish to draw the attention of Parliament—and this is an opportunity so to do—to the fact that the activities of the Land Commission so far have not achieved the aims and objects stated in the Act which set it up. It may be that they are beginning slowly and will take some time to get under way, but we should seek an early opportunity to explore further the Government's mind and to try to understand the workings of this body.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I intervene to point out the difficulties which the hon. Member is bringing on himself. Apart from contravening a standing

principle of the House, he is now seeking to explore the mind of the Government without giving the Minister a chance to be present to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Cooke: We all know that the Government are in the habit of reading HANSARD, and my very brief although not contentious remarks will no doubt be noted. The House would like to know a little more of the Government's mind in this matter, and, whereas the Government could seek an opportunity at an early day, it is difficult for a private Member to get an opportunity to question the Department concerned. I hope that I have been fair in what I have said so far.
I will also try to be fair in the last thing I want to say. I will not cite cases, but the incidence of the levy made in the provisions under which the Land Commission has been set up seems, from cases which have been published recently in the Press, to be falling all too heavily on people of modest means who find that the sudden and unexpected impost of a tax on the modest profit which they have made is a source of great distress and financial difficulty. I am not sure that the aim of the Government who set up the organisation was that the levy should fall so harshly on so many modest people. The purpose of the levy was to cream off some of the suggested large profits made by large property operators.
I have been scrupulously fair; I have seized an opportunity which does not often occur. The Government should seek an early opportunity to explain themselves further. I have said nothing that could be challenged as a matter of opinion. I have stated only facts which are well known and I have merely marshalled them. I hope that the few brief remarks I have made will not go unheard and unanswered.

The Debate having been concluded, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting of the House at three minutes to Twelve o'clock till Ten o'clock Tomorrow pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, 20th February, 1969

Morning Sitting

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Ten o'clock a.m.

PARLIAMENT No. 2 BILL

Again considered in Committee [Progress, 19th February].

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

10.1 a.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: On a point of order. May I ask for your assistance, Mr. Irving. At this sitting of the Committee we shall be discussing the one vital Scottish Amendment, affecting the position not only of Scottish peers, but of the Act of Union and the Act of 1707, and the question of retaining the Scottish safeguards. In the Scottish Standing Committee we have the Education (Scotland) Bill, with which almost all my hon. Friends interested in the Amendment are concerned. Most of us want to be in both places and have contributions to make on both these vital issues. Is there anything the Leader of the House or you, Mr. Irving, could do to protect us? It is the only day that this problem will arise, and both are vital subjects.

Mr. Younger: Further to that point of order. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that we are sitting this morning puts some of us in very great difficulty. I appreciate that the question of sittings in the Chamber at the same time as sittings upstairs in Committee has arisen fairly frequently in the past, but the situation as regards Amendment No. 156, in the name of myself and my hon. Friends, puts us in a position which it is not just difficult, but practically impossible, to cope with this morning. We have to put forward the most complicated arguments which are of great constitutional significance, on the Amendment. It is impossible to adduce them properly and concisely if one is continually being interrupted by the need to go upstairs to vote, or to come down from there to carry on argument here.
I should be grateful if you could help us in this matter, Mr. Irving, by at least indicating whether a halt can be called to these proceedings before that Amendment is reached. You may think that that is a rather unlikely eventuality, but if I were to delay raising the question until the Amendment came up it would probably come up when I was elsewhere. Therefore, I hope that you will accept that this is the only time that I can reasonably raise this, and that you will look on my plea with sympathy.

Mr. Howie: There are numerous Amendments on the Notice Paper, some in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), whom I see in his place. It seems fairly unlikely that we should reach the interesting Amendment dealing with the Act of Union very quickly.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I think that we are entering into a debate now. Perhaps hon. Members will let me answer the point of order.

Mr. Hector Monro: A similar problem arose on 28th May last year when we were dealing with the Social Work (Scotland) Bill in Committee and trying to put an Amendment with Scottish interests to the Transport Bill in this Chamber. The Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) then accepted that we should have a prolonged period of five minutes for Division in Committee upstairs, so that it would be possible for word to come to the Chamber and the troops to be retrieved. Following that, the Chairman said that he would bring this to the notice of the Speaker and discuss with him what would happen on a similar occasion.
This seems to be the similar occasion, when all the 12 Scottish Conservative Members have now signed Amendment No. 156. We shall be in extreme difficulty in dealing with the Amendment here and doing our work in Committee upstairs. I hope that this problem can be examined in depth.

Earl of Dalkeith: Is it not contempt to Scotland to expect hon. Members to be in two places at the same time on such an important issue? There are


hundreds of Amendments to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. It is very unfortunate that our consideration of the Education (Scotland) Bill should have coincided with the one really important Scottish Amendment which is likely to be reached today. We cannot rely on the good will of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) to keep the debate going, but if he can assure us that he will we shall probably be much comforted. Perhaps it would be possible to have an annunciator in the Chamber so that we could see what was happening in the Scottish Committee and know which place to be in at which time. Otherwise, we shall have to behave like wishbones.

Mr. Ridley: Further to the point of order. I am not a member of the Scottish Committee, but I am a member of the Standing Committee on the Post Office Bill. I have tried to play my small part in our debates on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. My conflict is much more immediate than that of my hon. Friends, because I want to take part in the debate on the Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie), which is next.

The Chairman: Order. I think the point has been made adequately. At least, the Chair understands the hon. Member's difficulties. Unless the hon. Gentleman has anything to add to the point of order, it would be wise if the Chair were allowed to answer it.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: My hon. Friends have explained the difficulty we face, which I am sure you fully understand, Mr. Irving. But there is a difficulty that I particularly find myself in. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is to move the Amendment about the representation of the Scottish peers in the reformed House. I am one of the many hon. Members who has supported him in that Amendment. He and I have been engaged in considerable research into the matter over the past few weeks, and I want to be able to place the findings of our researches before the Committee. It happens also that I have been charged with the duty of leading for the Opposition during the Committee stage of the Education (Scotland) Bill.
This puts me in a very difficult position. That Bill proposes certain changes in the education structure in Scotland, some of which we support and many of which we strongly oppose. I am supposed to be leading for the Opposition on a number of Amendments this morning. Equally, I find it necessary to be in this Committee later to speak on my hon. Friend's Amendment.
It is clear that there will be a number of Divisions in the Scottish Standing Committee this morning. I am not aware of any means of communication between the Committee and the Chamber. Would it be possible to borrow one of the bleepers that the messengers of the House use, so that we could at least have immediate contact with one of our Scottish friends who is not a member of the Committee and could be here to look after our interests and warn us when the Committee was about to approach this critical Scottish Amendment?

The Chairman: That is an ingenious suggestion, but I must offer the same advice—rather negative, perhaps—that my predecessors in the Chair have offered on similar occasions. There is nothing the Chair can do to help hon. Members in this situation.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Chairman: Order. I hope that hon. Members will not repeat the same point of order. I have said that I cannot do anything about it, and that is final as far as that point of order is concerned.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should like, through you, Mr. Irving, to make a suggestion. If the Leader of the House indicated that, in the event of the Amendment with which my hon. Friends are concerned being reached, he will be prepared to move to report Progress, that would completely resolve the matter. My anxiety in making this submission is increased by the fact that my Amendment immediately preceeding it is one that I assume the Government can accept, as it is designed only to put their declaration into statutory form.

Mr. Peart: I am grateful for the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd Carpenter). This is a good suggestion and


when we reach that Amendment this morning—I hope that he will assist us to achieve it—I will be delighted to move to report Progress.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns) rose—

The Chairman: Order. I think that the Leader of the House has been very accommodating and I hope that hon. Members will not waste any further time.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Mr. Buchanan-Smith rose—

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Ridley rose—

The Chairman: Order. That point of order has been disposed of, and unless hon. Members have other points of order to raise, I must ask the Committee to proceed.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On a further point of order. I am sure that we all accept the kind offer of the Leader of the House and that we welcome his assurances, but it would be helpful for the future, since this arose last year and will obviously arise at other stages this year—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said, it was raised by a member of the Scottish Standing Committee last year with Mr. Speaker—to know how this could be dealt with in future. Would you be able to give us an answer on this, Mr. Irving, if not today, perhaps later on when you have found out more about it?

The Chairman: I cannot answer for Mr. Speaker in a Committee of the whole House. The Leader of the House has heard what was said and I must now ask the Committee to proceed.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I must apologise for the fact, that, due to the appalling weather—which is no doubt due to the Labour Government—I was delayed getting here, so I am not sure whether my point has been raised.
An important constitutional Bill is now proceeding in Standing Committee. I refer to the Horserace Betting Levy Bill, which the Government are pushing because they feel that it is an important issue. This Bill, too, is a great constitutional Bill and many hon. Members in the Standing Committee want to take part in these discussions. But they cannot be in two places at once. This has

happened before, I agree, but not on such a great constitutional Bill as this, on which we know that there is a divergence of opinion at least between the Front Benches and the back benches.
Is there some way in which we could adjourn the proceedings here to let us concentrate on the very important constitutional Bill, the Horserace Betting Levy Bill? Or perhaps we could adjourn that Committee so as to be able to concentrate on these discussions.

The Chairman: Four Standing Committees are meeting this morning and I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. He must make what arrangements he can.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order—

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to repeat the same point of order.

Mr. Ridley: I believe that this is an important point of order. The Leader of the House has conceded that, when we reach the Scottish Amendment he will adjourn the proceedings of the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—well, move to report Progress then—[Interruption.] If he is now going back on that undertaking, I will leave that to my hon. Friends from Scotland.
My point is rather different. Why should the Leader of the House agree to consider moving to report Progress for a Scottish Amendment which concerns Scottish Members, when there are equally important considerations affecting the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and myself, who are both on Standing Committees? It is surely discrimination for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will agree to adjourn because he recognises the clash for my hon. Friends for Scotland but will ignore the clash which faces the hon. Member for West Ham, North and myself, who are also members of Standing Committees.

The Chairman: I must indicate firmly that these matters are not matters for the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to approach the Leader of the House, he may do so, but not in the Committee.

Mr. MacArthur: Further to that point of order—

The Chairman: Order. I have disposed of that point of order.

Mr. Ridsdale: I am sorry that I was late in arriving and I apologise to the Committee, but the weather was bad and the train was late. My point of order is this. Twice have I tried to speak on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, and twice the Committee has been closured. Twice have I tried to speak on a constitutional point and in a constitutional Bill like this. I ask for your protection, Mr. Irving, so that we may be able to discuss points like this and hon. Members like myself will not be prevented from speaking.

The Chairman: I am not clear what point the hon. Member is making. We have disposed of only one Clause, anyway. I feel, perhaps hesitantly, that he is reflecting on the judgment and operation of the Chair, if he seeks to believe that the Chair has in any way excluded him. The Chair has exercised as scrupulously as possible the Standing Orders which are laid down by the House for Committee.

Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order. I have no wish to reflect on the Chair in any way. That was far from my intention. But I pointed out that twice I have not been able to speak because of the closure.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Howie.

Earl of Dalkeith: On a different point of order—

The Chairman: Order. The noble Lord was submitting to the Committee that the business upstairs would conflict with this Committee. I hope that he will allow the Committee here to make as much progress as possible so as to help the accommodation which I understand that the Leader of the House has suggested.

Earl of Dalkeith: Arising out of what you say about our approaching the Leader of the House, Mr. Irving, how do we approach him on this question, because he does not—

The Chairman: Order. In disposing of the point of order to which the noble Lord refers, I made it clear that he could not do it in this Committee.

Clause 2

RESTRICTION OF RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE LORDS

10.15 a.m.

Mr. Howie: I am grateful to you, Mr. Irving, for the kindness which you have shown to my fellow Scots, who seemed, as someone said last night, to be "over-egging the pudding".
I beg to move Amendment No. 136, in page 2, line 44, at end insert:
'The number of voting peers shall at first be 300 and they shall be so nominated as to give supporters of the Government of the day a clear majority over all others.
The nominations shall be submitted to the House of Commons for approval'.
This important constitutional Bill has a very good purpose, the removal of certain limitations which an unrepresentative Chamber can put on the House of Commons. However, as has become apparent during our debates, which have moved with such dispatch that the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) seemed to be under the impression that we had disposed of two Clauses when we had only disposed of one, the Bill has a number of deficiencies and the Committee is applying its collective mind to dealing with them.

This Amendment deals with one such. It touches on matters which were discussed more or less at the same time yesterday. It arises from the fact that the Bill gives no guidance to this Chamber as constituted at the moment or to posterity of the number of members required in a reformed second Chamber. This is quite wrong and mistaken and is an inept way to deal with important legislation.

True, in the Preamble, there are hints which would lead us to refer to the White Paper, where there are indications of what the reformed Chamber might look like, but it became plain yesterday morning that the Preamble has no real legal consequence and, further, that it cannot be binding on Front Benches on either side in future.

The White Paper and the Preamble suggest that a bargain has been made between the Government and Opposition Front Benches and one-twelfth of the Liberal Party. The other eleven-twelfths


agree with the conclusions of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). Nevertheless, a bargain appears to have been reached. I say "appears", because I am a little uncertain about the matter.

Yesterday, I tried to get the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who, I am sad to say, has left the Chamber—he kept an eye on the points of order, but has left now that the proceedings on the Bill have started—to say whether the bargain was still on. But the Opposition Front Bench seem unwilling to make a declaration to that effect. The Opposition Front Bench should give us a hint as to their attitude towards the bargain, because it keeps reappearing in our debates. It would greatly help back benchers if they knew whether there is a bargain, and, if so, whether it is still on, and whether it is likely to be delivered to eternity.

There is no reason why the House of Commons should not determine the composition of a reformed House of Lords by legislation rather than by convention or bargain. The numbers in the House of Commons are regulated by legislation. From time to time we pass Representation of the People Measures which deal, not only with the numbers in the House of Commons, but with the method by which we get here. The number of Ministers forming the Government is determined by legislation. We pass Ministers of the Crown Acts from time to time. We had one in 1965, and a very good one it was—it paid my salary.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is the best argument I have heard for it yet.

Mr. Howie: We do not leave those matters to the making of bargains between the Front Benches or convention. There is no reason why the Lords should be different in that respect. We might conceivably argue about the numbers in the Lords and their distribution, but we should agree on a number and legislate to that effect.
The next deficiency in the Bill is that no hint is given about the composition of the reformed House in terms of party. That is utterly crucial, because party is the base of this reform. Apart from the removal of the hereditary principle, the central reason for the Bill is to ensure that the Government party can secure a

majority in the Lords to protect its final year of office.
I realise that normally party is not recognised in our Parliamentary life. But we know that it exists. However, the situation is changing and our legislation is beginning to meet the realities of parliamentary life. For the first time the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1965, brought party into our legislation, but it did so by inference rather than by direct mention. For the first time the word "Whip" appeared in our legislation when the Assistant Whips were recognised as paid members of the Government.
Previously, Whips had been referred to in legislation by names like Treasurer of the Household—you, Mr. Irving, were Treasurer of the Household at one time—or they appeared under the guise of Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. Presumably they were theoretically able to call the Chancellor of the Exchequer to account immediately before his budget—not that they did so. They were managerial functionaries of the House of Commons and a great deal of their work was party work. By including Assistant Whips in the legislation we recognised the existence of party.

Mr. Powell: I am a little puzzled as to how the inclusion in the Ministers of the Crown Act of assistants to officials who have always featured on the Government payroll brings party any more into our legislation. Ever since the early 18th century the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury have exercised party functions I am not clear how the inclusion of their assistants brings party any more into our legislation.

Mr. Howie: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Party has been there, but we have been very British about it because we have given our party functionaries sinecures and they have been paid, not as party functionaries, but in virtue of their office. The reality of party was there, but on the surface the situation was slightly different.

Mr. Powell: There cannot be anything more British nor a more British camouflage than to insert into legislation a term derived from fox hunting.

Mr. Howie: That may be so. The right hon. Gentleman probably prefers camouflage more than I do. I prefer things to be straight forward and open.

The Chairman: I am having a little difficulty in understanding how the hon. Gentleman is relating his remarks to the Amendment. Perhaps he would help me.

Mr. Howie: I am about to do that, Mr. Irving. I allowed myself to be lured away by reminiscence more than anything else.
We have recognised party, and we recognised it in the recent Representation of the People Measure concerning, not the House of Commons, but our electoral arrangements. In this Bill we recognise party in the composition of the House of Lords where the majority will be of one party or the other.
I suggest in my Amendment that, rather than implement the kind of proposal which the Government make in the White Paper and which is part of the bargain about which we hear, the Government should have a clear majority over all others. I suggest that so that the Bill can secure the predominance of the House of Commons, which cannot be done unless the Government party has a majority. I admit that if the Government nominate a member to the House of Lords specifically to represent one party, there can be no absolute guarantee that that person will always represent that party. He will be appointed for his general views, just as we are elected for our general views, and, in the fullness of time, his views may change. He may become less strictly adherent to his party or may even change it. Nevertheless, the Government should have a clear nominal majority.
10.30 a.m.
I am open to suggestion on the size of that majority. Majorities in the House of Commons vary in size and usefulness. There was for a time a majority of three in the last Parliament, which was useful for some purposes, but on the whole not desirable. Since then the majority has fluctuated between 90 and 60 or so. I am not sure that a big majority is better than a small one, but the Government no doubt could consider the size of the majority to be included in the Bill. Perhaps we could have the advice

of the Opposition Chief Whip, who is expert in these matters, and it may be that he will catch your eye, Mr. Irving. Perhaps a majority of 10 or 12 would be suitable.
If we accept the proposals in the White Paper that the Government should have nearly a majority but not quite, there being a sizeable number of cross-benchers the Government will be at the mercy of a blocking quarter. There are constitutional arguments in favour of a blocking quarter in Rhodesia, for example, where it is feasible that a minority might terrorise over a majority, but such arguments do not apply here.

The Amendment mentions nominations. Objections to nomination have been expressed in Committee because they extend patronage. I do not share these objections; I approve of patronage. The only thing wrong with patronage is that sometimes the wrong people get it. A sizeable number of hon. Members wish, due to proper and reasonable ambition, to be patronised from the back benches on to the Front Bench. Having got there, they are sometimes patronised back off it, but this is a fact of Parliamentary life.

The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), having been distinguished Members of the House of Commons, were patronised on to the Front Bench and then demoted to the back bench. The conclusion I draw is that ambition does not offer a guarantee of good behaviour. That the offer of patronage to the other place would make back-bench Members of the House of Commons biddable and useful would appear from our experience to be unlikely.

Mr. Heffer: Hear, hear.

Mr. Howie: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) says "Hear, hear". I recall him saying in an earlier debate that he was closely looked at with favour, but a hint to him that he might receive grace or favour did not change his attitude, nor would one expect it to do so. The argument there falls. I have sometimes heard the reverse argument. I have been asked by ambitious hon. Members, how many times they have to abstain before they


become a Parliamentary Secretary. Then, as the competition becomes keener, I am asked how often they have to vote against the Government to become a Parliamentary Secretary.
Why should there be alarm about nomination to the other place? It is by no means a new idea. The noble Lords have always been nominated in the first creation, and the inheritors of nominations are nominated at second hand. The principle of nomination is built into the House of Lords.
I understand, from earlier debates and conversations with my colleagues, that there is sensitivity on this matter; consequently, the Amendment suggests that instead of nominations appearing on the Honours List, they should appear on a list of nominations made, presumably, by the Party leaders, perhaps including the Nationalists, which should be submitted to the House of Commons for approval. We might have an interesting debate on each list of nominations.

The Amendment provides, first, that the number of voting peers shall be 300. I do not mind whether the number is 300, 200, or 400; the important thing is that it should not be 1,000 as it is at the moment. But I do not die in the last ditch for 300. The Amendment provides, secondly, that the nominations should be subject to our scrutiny and our approval. For these reasons I hope that the Government will accept, not necessarily the precise terms of the Amendment, but the fundamental principle, that the numbers should be fixed by us and included in legislation and that the House of Commons should have the right of scrutiny and approval of the lists of nominees.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) has been engagingly disingenuous in confessing his past as a paid "adherent" of the Administration, but I think that we are all glad, and the more glad since the speech which he has just completed, that he has regained his freedom and is able to give his advice to the Committee without trammel. Nevertheless, some marks of his past as a Whip "adhere" to him, if I may use that word again in another context, since the Amendment would turn the other place into a veritable Whips' paradise, so contrived that

nothing could ever go wrong for the Government.
Obviously, all of us on the back benches have difficulties in framing our Amendments in such a way which would pass scrutiny. I will mention briefly what seem to me to be two serious ambiguities in the Amendment. The first is that the Amendment indicates what number there are to be "at first". However, it is not clear whether the subsequent prescription as to how they are to be nominated relates to the first creation of this new Chamber or whether it means that they shall from time to time be so nominated as always to give supporters of the Government of the day a clear majority over all others.
That difficulty appears to link with another to which the hon. Gentleman referred; that is, how we are to be sure what is meant by a clear majority. Is a clear majority a majority of one, which notoriously is sufficient, or is it a majority which the Whips regard as a comfortable working majority?

Mr. Howie: Twelve.

Mr. Powell: If a clear majority of, say, 12—the Tory dozen—is lost, does the hon. Gentleman envisage that the Government of the day would top up the the other place so as automatically to neutralise any defections from their adherents? I think that the Amendment is less than clear in indicating how those difficulties would be dealt with.

Mr. Howie: I am glad that I managed only two ambiguities. Some people manage seven, I seem to remember. Is not this specific problem, which is a very real one, inherent in the scheme of the bargain in any case?

Mr. Powell: Certainly. Before I sit down I shall, at any rate, associate myself with the hon. Gentleman in that his Amendment, by its very attempt to write into the Bill what at present is concealed by the Preamble, helps to expose, or further to expose, the inherent absurdities and difficulties of the whole scheme. Indeed, I was coming to one of those difficulties.
The notion of a supporter is an extremely difficult one. I accept that, under the Representation of the People Act, we now have at elections recognised party


adherence and a party label. But, after all, that is adherence on a specific occasion—as it were, for one day only. There is a world of difference between saying that a candidate stands at an election as a supporter of the Conservative or Labour Party and saying that a Member sits in either House of Parliament as a supporter of such and such a party.
All Members know that in the last resort our individual influence—indeed, the whole structure of politics in this country—depends upon the ultimate right of a Member of Parliament to detach himself, perhaps finally and irrevocably, from the party under whose banner he has entered the House. I do not believe that any of us would submit to coming into this House upon the condition that we were here only as supporters of a particular party. We get into a similar difficulty when we attempt to put Members of another place, however subordinate their function is to be, into that situation.
I feel, too, that there is great difficulty about the proposal for nominations—creations, old style—to be approved by the House of Commons. I wonder, in the first place, what validity or additional safeguard would attach to such a procedure. Would the Whips be on or off during the Motion to approve the list? Would the list be amendable? Presumably it would. In that case, we would probably have more guillotine Motions under this procedure as we exercise our right to scrutinise, name by name, the suitability of the credentials and debate at length all those proposed to be nominated to the other chamber.
If, on the other hand—and surely this would be the only practicable way, though I think it undesirable—a list is presented, take it or leave it, with the Whips on, then the approval becomes just as much an act of the Executive as the nomination in the original instance, and we have not gained by it. Therefore, I think that in the hon. Gentleman's scheme there are serious difficulties.

Mr. Paget: Surely, we would gain something if the list is made debatable. The Government may be rather anxious to include some names if there is to be a debate about the list.

10.45 a.m.

Mr. Powell: I have thought about the proposition which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just put to me, and I have come to the opposite conclusion. I believe that a list which the Government, even with the Whips on and on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, had to submit to the House of Commons would be likely to be a worse list in being a more blameless list, a more balanced list, a list more easily defended in this Chamber, than it might otherwise have been. I can think of a number of creations of this Government, as well as of previous Governments, which, by any standard, have been good and worthy creations which would have been less likely to take place if those names had had to feature in a list to be debated in this Chamber.
I readily concede to the hon. Member for Luton—and this is the value of his Amendment, as of so many Amendments that we have discussed—that the difficulties in it are not difficulties of his making. They are difficulties which the Government are making for themselves and attempting to make for Parliament for the future. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to do what we have throughout these debates demanded that the Government should have done if we were fairly to debate the matter, namely, to write the essentials of the Preamble into the Bill. But when we look at the part of the Preamble which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to write into the Bill, we find that the Government have not committed themselves at all.
They have not committed themselves on number. For that we have to look to a paragraph in the White Paper, and in the White Paper the figures are only offered as a specimen. The Government have not committed themselves on the question who is to have a majority and what that majority is to be. Yet that is absolutely crucial to the whole reasoning and argument for the operation on which we are engaged of reforming another place.
When we look at the Preamble, with all the majesty and splendour with which the senior Law Officer of the Crown sought to endow it yesterday, all we are told is that there is to be the preservation of a "proper balance" between members adhering to one party, to another party,


or none. There is no indication even in the Preamble of what is regarded as a "proper balance". Strictly speaking, I suppose that the world "balance" is unambiguous. The word "balance" must mean, taken literally, equality. But it is absurd to talk about a balance between three categories unless they are all to be equal. Unless there is to be a precisely equal number, it is difficult to see what could properly be described as a "balance". The addition of the adjective "proper" indicates that balance is not being used in the sense of an exact balance between two opposing sides, but conveys a vague expression of opinion which is purely subjective.
So, once again, we have to get behind the Preamble and go to the White Paper, which presents us with the old absurdity which we have so often in these debates had to confront: the dilemma, or the conundrum, of a House which is so constituted that it is automatically subservient to the Government on any question, or alternatively, a House which is out of control of the Administration, but which, because it is a reformed house, is not under the pressures to conform which, in practice, operate at present on the other House so that it does not find itself able seriously to obstruct or resist the will of the House of Commons.
In other words, from yet another point of view, led by the hon. Gentleman's attempt to write this part of the Preamble into some kind of statutory terms, we have uncovered the primordial, basic absurdity of the Government's whole intention, and for that we are very much in the debt—though I do not apprehend that the Amendment in itself is one upon which he would insist—of the hon. Member for Luton.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose—

Mr. Sheldon: Mr. Sheldon rose—

The Chairman: Mr. Heffer.

Mr. Michael Foot: Mr. Irving, did I hear you call my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)?

Mr. Heffer: I shall gladly give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who, I know, has to go to a meeting at half-past eleven.

The Chairman: I was hoping that having called the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), he would proceed with his speech. If the hon. Member gave way I would in any case be bound to call a Member from the other side. Mr. Heffer.

Mr. Heffer: I am not very happy with the Amendment, despite my original enthusiasm for it. Having examined it, I feel that it has many faults which, if they were adopted, would not be particularly useful in relation to the future of the other place.
I believe that the Committee would be well advised not to admit the Amendment, but, with the permission of the Chair, I should like to develop my views a little later, perhaps after I have heard some of the other speeches for and against the Amendment. With the permission of the Chair I shall now resume my seat in the hope that I shall be able to speak again later in the debate.

[Mr. GRANT-FERRTS in the Chair]

Mr. Hooson: I agree with the view that the service rendered to the Committee by the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) in tabling this Amendment is yet further to underline the absurdity of the Bill. I have always found the hon. Gentleman to have a practical mind, and its practicality was reinforced by his years of experience in the Whip's Office. The hon. Gentleman has brought his experience to bear on the problems that would attend any Government if the Bill went through and it came to a question of obtaining a ready majority in the other House.
Having looked at the Preamble, which has no legal effect, and not being satisfied that it would achieve what we want, the hon. Gentleman has suggested by way of this Amendment something which he hopes will guarantee a working majority for the Government of the day, and by this very process he has showed up the whole absurdity of the Bill.
Let us consider for a moment what would happen if the Amendment became part of the Bill. If the Prime Minister of the day suggested to the monarch that certain people should be nominated for membership of the other House as voting peers, and within a few weeks those voting adherents changed sides, the Prime


Minister would have to go back to the monarch to ask for yet further creations. This would involve the monarch in interpreting this provision if it was argued by the Prime Minister of the day that more nominations were needed to give supporters of the Government a clear majority. What are
supporters of the Government of the day"?
This is an impossible thing upon which to legislate. It is an impossible thing to define, and it would be virtually impossible for a judge to interpret.

Mr. Howie: Later in our discussions we shall come to the part where it is suggested that Members of the House of Lords need not be peers at all. In that event the monarch would be absolved from this distasteful duty.

Mr. Hooson: At the moment the creation of peers, whether life peers or otherwise, depends on their being so made by the monarch, at the suggestion of the Prime Minister of the day.
I do not share the general criticism of the Preamble. I think that the Preamble was an old device. It had no legal effect, but what it did was not to crystalise constitutional conventions. It created constitutional conventions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This was not a suggestion. This was the formal advice to the Committee by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman finds it difficult to believe this, but I assure him that that was so, and I do not believe that it was intended as a joke.

Mr. Hooson: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that it was put forward as a serious proposition, but the effect of the Preamble is really not to crystallise the convention, but virtually to crystallise the bargain in this instance. I agree that it has not crystallised it, because we are left in the air about exactly what it was. This shows the absurdity of the whole thing.
My second criticism of the Amendment relates to the suggestion that
nominations shall be submitted to the House of Commons for approval.
What a jamboree that would be. One can imagine the list being included in the "Whip" first, and then in the "Orders of the Day", and each one being

singled out for debate. But how would we debate it? Would we debate the list as a whole, or the nominations individually?

Mr. Ridley: Perhaps we could shout "Object", as is done on a Friday.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We would not get anybody.

Mr. Hooson: If the Amendment were accepted, the House of Commons would be prevented from having a great deal of fun, if nothing else. I agree with the hon. Member for Luton that at the moment the whole process is left in the air. The hon. Gentleman is trying to give substance to the process by which a majority is to be obtained in the Upper House, and he is trying to give this House control over it. By so doing he is showing that the whole thing is unworkable.

Mr. Howie: That is not so. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that we already discuss the membership of Select Committees, some of which are quite sizeable. The problems referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman would appear with each set of nominations, in the same way as they do with Select Committees. It would be a real jamboree, and I am rather looking forward to it.

Mr. Hooson: Patronage is objectionable. Patronage which results in the creation of peers is bad enough, but patronage by 630 Members, which would be the result of accepting the Amendment, would be totally impracticable.
We have to consider what the function of the other House is to be. If it is to be a rubber stamp for this House—and that is really what the hon. Gentleman is proposing—it should not exist at all. I am against the hereditary principle, but I think that there is a good deal more in favour of having hereditary peers than of having an entirely nominated House dependent entirely on patronage. I would prefer a House with greatly reduced powers to a more able House with greater ability, shoved in by means of nominations, but dependent entirely on patronage. It is highly objectionable, but the hon. Gentleman has done the Committee a great service by further indicating how absurd the Bill is.

11.0 a.m.

Mr. Sheldon: We are used to the great problems of the Liberal Party and—speaking as one who does not on every occasion belittle the role of the Liberal Party—I think that, on reflection, perhaps in a year's time, it will admit that its performance on this Bill was less than worthy of its importance. Of course, the Liberals are faced with a great dichotomy. On the one hand, they call the Bill absurd and trivial, while, on the other, they know that this is the first piece of important patronage given to them, the first bribe they have been offered, and, having accepted the bribe, they feel ashamed. It is unworthy of them to get over this feeling of shame by calling the Bill trivial instead of doing what their forebears would have done and opposed it.

Mr. Ridley: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel sorry for the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing), who has been given no part in this bargain and has no likelihood of any favours to come for her party?

Mr. Sheldon: The powers of patronage in the Bill are meant to be here for some time to come and, although we would be pleased to see the hon. Lady in another guise, or under another label, her position as a political party in the House of Commons may not last that long.

Mrs. Ewing: I am glad to have a little support from the benches opposite for the view that we shall be getting a Scottish Parliament quite quickly.

Mr. Sheldon: This may be so, but I am not sure that these powers of patronage would extend there or that even the hon. Lady would find a place there. However, she will be welcome under another label in the House of Commons for many years to come.

The Amendment is the first reference to the position of the House of Commons as having some say in the selection of Members of the House of Lords, and hon. Members are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) for bringing this aspect forward. There are a number of ways in which the Amendment would produce unworkable and silly results, but my hon. Friend

has stressed the importance of the principle at stake and we should certainly consider whether it would be possible to use the principle in another shape. My hon. Friend is not opposed to that.

If 300 peers were to be submitted to the House of Commons for approval of their membership of the House of Lords, the first step taken would be to formalise the arrangements through the usual channels, so that we would have the agreement of both Parties and the House would have little say. But I accept the point put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that safeguards could exist in debating the total number.

But I believe this scheme to be unworkable mainly because it would be a rather humiliating process for a large number of suitable people, and if we could find a better way of increasing the influence of the House of Commons, so much the better. Involved in this is the lack of personal knowledge of so many hon. Members about the peers whose names would be put forward. It is obvious that hon. Members could not possibly know 300 peers personally or even a small proportion of them. They would not be able to make a decision from personal knowledge, which is surely one of the important bases on which the peers should be judged.

Another aspect of this scheme is that it would tend to make the Government pick rather safe men—a point made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). However, it might be possible to find a method, such as a Select Committee, of "vetting" those whose names were put forward and of making known to the House if certain limits of patronage had been exceeded. These are only ideas. They are full of obvious holes. However, the point put by my hon. Friend is valid. The House of Commons ought to have some part to play in this process.

My hon. Friend proposes the figure of 300, but says that he is not wedded to it. We want to know something more about the choice in the White Paper of 230—a fairly precise figure. Of course, we want to keep to a fairly small number and 230 was presumably thought to be a workable figure. Presumably, however, it was reached on the basis of the


peers being paid. But do we want the same number in the House of Lords if the peers are not paid?

On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that, for the time being, the peers would not be paid. What, therefore, is the number which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would consider as being right for an unpaid House of Lords? We have a right to ask because the basis has now changed from that put forward in the White Paper. If 230 is the right figure for a paid House, obviously, we need a different number for an unpaid House. Perhaps we may now need 400, for example.

We are going forward on the basis that possibly the Government, like the Committee, think of this as an interim Measure and that payment will come later. As a result, no changes in the White Paper, as implemented in the Bill, are envisaged at present. The figure of 230 is still there, although the Prime Minister fundamentally changed the situation. We must insist on knowing whether, as the commitment to payment has gone, the commitment to the figure of 230 has also gone.

Earl of Dalkeith: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the number of peers should bear some relationship to the number of Members here and that the number of Members here may be changed drastically as a result of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government? We may have regional government. Is this not an argument for saying that the Bill should be dropped at present until we see what comes out of this major review?

Mr. Sheldon: If the hon. Gentleman is trying to adduce arguments to convince me that the Bill should be dropped, he is on receptive ground. I would be delighted to see the Bill withdrawn so that we could look at the many anomalies which are coming to light.
The figures must be related to the functions to be performed. Whereas we must be careful in selecting outstanding individuals for certain tasks, we need other representative types to carry out the general work that must be done. We

must consider this matter in the context of the sort of work that the reformed Chamber will do. Probably the most important aspect is the revision of legislation. I do not believe that the House of Lords should exist for this purpose, since we could achieve it in a number of other ways.
In many respects, the House of Lords prevents the House of Commons from changing its procedures. We could have a more efficient legislative unit by adopting a different method of revising legislation. I accept that this work must be done, but need it be done by the House of Lords? All sorts of other structures could be created to investigate legislation.
At present, we have large Standing Committees which examine Bills. This procedure often represents an utter waste of hon. Members' time. A small investigating body appointed to look into a Bill—it could be comprised of just two or three hon. Members—could probably do a better job in a much shorter time than a large standing committee comprising 50 hon. Members.

Mr. Denis Coe: My hon. Friend's suggestion is interesting, but in view of the great weight of legislation coming forward these days it would be impossible in the foreseeable future to do this revision work without an Upper Chamber.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Sheldon: I do not agree, although I respect my hon. Friend's views on the subject. I have always held that the work done by 50 hon. Members in a Standing Committee could be done better and more quickly by a group of half-a-dozen hon. Members who feel directly responsible for examining the legislation before them. The responsibility would then be direct and not muted. This would leave many hon. Members free to do other vital work.
Granted that some form of electoral system for the Upper House is not in the offing, there is no reason why the House of Lords should not be elected by the House of Commons in a way which we have perhaps not yet considered. If this important task of revising legislation is to be undertaken by the other place, I doubt whether we


shall need the illustrious names which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) mentioned in his brilliant speech yesterday. There are many more ordinary and workaday names who could make a big contribution in this sphere.
If we could find a means of asserting the dominance of the House of Commons—a factor which would be involved in an elected House of Lords—there would be some sort of restraint on patronage. It is the question of patronage that many hon. Members regard as one of the least pleasant parts of the Measure. At least if the Government agreed to the election of Members to the other place in the way I have described, they would be making a concession to hon. Members who hold strong views on the subject.
Having pointed out the peculiarity of the figures that have been given, it seems that they do not add up. It is as though two groups of people began to decide how many peers there should be, that one group suggested 200 and the other a different number and that the figure of 230 was arrived at as a compromise. The Home Secretary said that there would be 42 Conservative peers of succession, to be chosen from 274. What was the basis for this decision? Did the Government go through the names and say, "These people will be fiercely angry if we do not include them, so we had better add a few more as well?"
My right hon. Friend also said that there would be 24 Labour peers. There are only 21 Labour peers of succession, so that, if we are to have 66—the 42 Conservative and 24 Labour peers—from where will the other 11 come, since my right hon. Friend referred to 77 being appointed? How many will be life peers and how many new creations will be made? What will be the level of patronage in the first instance?

Mr. Howie: My hon. Friend will see on page 19 of the White Paper that the Government contemplate having about 80 new life peers, the great majority of whom will be drawn from existing peers by succession.

Mr. Sheldon: This is not the situation. I have mentioned those drawn from the peers of succession amounting to 66.

With the 77, there are a further 153. Most of the 80 are accounted for by those whom we have mentioned. It looks as though someone started off with a magical figure, they did some hard bargaining to justify it, and in their justification the arithmetic has gone wrong. We need proper and full disclosure on how these figures were worked out, who they include and the reasons for them.
One of the results of yesterday morning's debate is that we are without the Preamble, and we find ourselves with the most important part of the Bill removed That which is in the Bill was less important than the way it was to be interpreted, which lay with the Preamble. That is why so many hon. Members hastened to the Preamble to see what was there and to make their Amendments to it. They knew that the meat of the Bill lay in the Preamble. Now this is nothing like the legislative device that some of us, ignorant in the law, had presumed. We find the need to have some of this written into the Bill, so that we know exactly what it is we are voting on and what will take place in what was called a gilded Chamber.
In this crucial matter of how the Lords are chosen, we are faced with another absurdity. Many hon. Gentlemen previously uncommitted are now beginning to have very serious doubts about the value of the Bill. In the last day or so Ministers have come to me to express their point of view and said that they were not happy about this Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Names."] I know only two Ministers who I can say are unreservedly in favour of the Measure. One cannot give names in such matters.

Mr. Hooson: Can the hon. Member tell the Committee how many Ministers he has spoken so that we know the percentage?

Mr. Sheldon: In these kind of matters one only has a feeling for it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must accept this or decline it. It has been estimated that there are only three senior Ministers in favour of the Bill. I cannot get past two, but concede there may be another.

Mr. Howie: In these figures of two and three, is my hon. Friend including such Ministers as are already in the Lords?

Mr. Sheldon: This makes it very difficult, because when one is dealing with two the identification problem is obvious. My main argument is that there has been a realisation that we have come up with a bad Measure. There is a greater realisation that we may be forced to go on with it because of the agreement between the two Front Benches. There is a need to force this change of mind in the same way as was done over Stansted. Neither of the Front Benches must be seen to be humiliated too much.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: The hon. Gentleman has told the Committee some very important news about the change of views among Ministers. Would it not be a good idea for him to suggest a secret ballot to see where they stand?

Mr. Sheldon: It is a pity that that was not a more serious contribution, because there is a serious side to this. Ministers who are obsessed with their Departments or concerned with other matters, are coming to this view. I suppose that it applies to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite too. We can see the reasons for this. There is now a realisation that what was cosily agreed, is now becoming something bitterly opposed, something which has created deep divisions even among those who strongly supported the Measure at the beginning.
When the House of Commons is so clearly expressing its will there is the strongest case for looking again at this to see if we cannot get an agreement between the two Front Benches to drop it.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The hon. Gentleman's figures were of enormous interest to the Committee and have filled us with a great deal of mystification. I hope that they will be explained by the two Front Benches. It is a very unsatisfactory situation, when there should be rumours of bargains arrived at, actions taken, promises given and discreet conversations. Maybe even the bishops are involved in these discreet conversations. Which side will they be on? There is this promise of reward.
There is the smell behind the Bill of the sort of stock-jobbery which brings bad names and ill-repute to political parties. There is a mystery clearly

emerging as to the missing hereditary peers, where they will come from, and the number of life peers who have to be created. The Bill becomes more unsatisfactory, it begins almost to have the smell of corruption even at this early stage.
Noble Lords in another place seem to have united in their own self-destruction as a House without taking into consideration the proper interests of the constitution as a whole. Some of the votes recorded in another place bring shame to that House. I hope, before the Bill is concluded, that there will be statements and disavowals of bargains which seem to have been reached with certain individuals. I am sorry that our own Front Bench is empty. As a Privy Councillor it would be improper for me to occupy that Bench, but perhaps one of my hon. Friends below the Gangway would think it fit to do so.
This is a serious matter which must be cleared up. There must be clear declarations by both sides. The discussion here will go on for a long time, during which I hope that some persons in the other place will begin to realise that they are not merely there because of their own importance, but because they play a vital part in our constitution, and they should defend their position rather than look after their own interests

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Heffer: I was much attracted by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie), particularly his suggestion that the nominations should be submitted to the House of Commons. Although I agree with the principle that, if there is to be this sort of House of Lords, the House of Commons should be the approving body, we should nevertheless examine the difficulties which could arise from 300 names coming before the House of Commons.
If we are trying to get representative opinion in the other place, obviously trade unionists would have to be included in the 300 names. We should have to determine how the trade union nominations were to be made. Would they be made by the T.U.C. General Council, or would we ask the Liaison Committee of the London dockers to submit nominations? Could the House of Commons


then argue about whether it should be Lord George Woodcock or Lord Jack Dash. Coming to the arts—

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Lord Jack Dash, who is a very good artist, could sit on the Arts Council, too. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has seen any of Jack Dash's pictures.

Mr. Heffer: Jack Dash would probably make a very good representative of the arts, although his nomination might clash with the opinions of some of us who might support Arthur Dooley, the Liverpool sculptor, who would be able to make a very powerful contribution to any discussions on the arts. Great debates would take place about each name on the list. We all have our prejudices about the arts and about who should represent the trade unions. Some hon. Members opposite would have their prejudices about who should represent industry. There might well be a debate lasting five or six hours on each name on the list. Difficulties would arise as to the churches which would be represented. So, although the idea has its attractions, it would involve great difficulties.

Then the Amendment provides that
the Government of the day

should have
a clear majority over all others.

We would have a list of 300 names before us. If there were a majority of only three here, as occured from 1964 to 1966, imagine the problems. If an hon. Member slipped out to go to the toilet, a name could be put on to the list which he did not approve of. Would the Whips be on or off? A situation could arise such as that which obtained when I was in the Communist Party: a list was presented to us by the National Executive and one either voted for the lot or rejected the list in its entirety; there was no chance to amend anything. We could not agree to such an anti-democratic system here. One of the reasons why I was thrown out of the Communist Party was that I did not agree with that system.

The White Paper mentions 230 voting peers. The Bill states no number. We do not know what the thinking of the Front Benches is. I see that there is no one present on the Opposition Front

Bench this morning. Right hon. Members opposite are worse than the Liberals, about whom complaints were made the other day. The Conservative Front Bench has apparently lost interest in the Bill rather rapidly. What will be the precise number? Will it be 230 or 300 as the Amendment proposes. We are entitled to know what the precise number will be in the deformed Upper Chamber.

I object to the Clause, too, because it would perpetuate the whole principle of nomination. It has been rightly said that the House of Lords is nominated at present. In the sense that there are peers of first creation and there are also those who are there because of heredity. The principle involved in the Clause and in the Amendment is an extension of the principle of nomination. I find this much more distasteful. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that there were 21 hereditary peers who were members of the Labour Party. It does not follow that their successors will be members of the Labour Party—or, indeed, of the Conservative Party or of the Liberal Party or of anything.

Mr. Russell Kerr: They might be members of Black Dwarf.

Mr. Heffer: Exactly. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and I know something about that organisation.

Mr. Ridsdale: Was there not a Socialist peer—Lord Baldwin—sitting in the Upper House during the time of a Conservative Prime Minister?

Mr. Heffer: Yes. Although we are not certain what the future for hereditary peers will be, the proposals in the Bill and in the Amendment involve some certainty, and that certainty would be based upon the principle of patronage. It is precisely this which I find very objectionable.
Yesterday, an hon. Member opposite asked, "If you are opposed to this, what do you want to put in its place?" That is a very fair question. My view is that either we should abolish the other place or take away its powers, or we should have a second Chamber directly elected democratically. But the Bill is neither one thing or the other. My


father used to have a very good expression, which I could not repeat in the House, to describe such a thing. It was a very good way to describe the sort of dog's breakfast we have in the Bill.

The Amendment will not help, despite my hon. Friend's valiant efforts. He has made the proposal with the clear object of assisting to get some clarity, but I object to it because it continues or extends the principle of nomination, which I find most objectionable. Therefore, I shall not support my hon. Friend.

The first part of the Clause says that the voting peers shall consist only of those of first creation, so the whole idea of a nominated peerage, with the two Front Benches and the Liberal leader deciding who will be nominated, is underlined.

The idea of the list coming before the House of Commons to be debated has some attractions for me, but I agree with the hon. Member who said that it would be a jamboree. We can imagine how long we should go on, and what fun we could have in discussing the names on the list. The Amendment is impractical, and we could not support it.

We should be very careful about putting forward Amendments which can make the position worse. If the Bill goes through unamended it will be a pretty poor document, but we could amend it in such a way as to help to make it even worse. I could not support my hon. Friend, because the Amendment does make it worse than it is.

Mr. Ridley: I apologise for having had to leave for 10 minutes to attend a Standing Committee. If I repeat any argument as a result, I am sure that that will be brought to my attention.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was a little harsh on his hon. Friend the member for Luton (Mr. Howie), who should be encouraged verbally, though not with votes, for trying to clarify how the suggestion that the Government should have a workable majority in another place is to be achieved. This has made me look at the figures in the White Paper, which says that in a total House of 230 the appropriate

number of Government supporters in the present Parliament would be 105. The main opposition party, the Conservatives, would have 80, the other opposition parties 15, making 95 against the Government, and there would be 30 cross-benchers. That would be 125 who do not necessarily adhere to the Government and 105 who do. Therefore, the Government's working majority would not be secured even by the proposals in their White Paper, because if the cross-benchers voted against them they would bring about the Government's defeat. This is extraordinary, because the whole point of the Measure is to secure a working majority for the Government in another place. If, even on their own published figures, that majority will not exist if the cross-benchers vote against the Government, their proposals do not achieve what is claimed to be their main recommendation.
Clearly, the cross-benchers must be allowed the independence of political attitude attributed to them in the Preamble. Therefore, it cannot be expected that the Government will carry the Divisions if the cross-benchers vote against them. Accordingly, the whole object of the Bill seems to be denied by the curious suggestion in the White Paper. I hope that the Minister who replies will deal with this point, because, if there is not a working majority, the advantage claimed by the Home Secretary last night that another place would not frustrate a Labour Government in the same way that all Labour Governments have been threatened by frustration is no longer valid, because the majority is not there.
I join with hon. Members who have questioned the whole concept of appointing members of a party on the basis of their political affiliations. The word "adhering", which has been so often quoted, is nauseous. Would the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), the representative of the Liberal Party in these debates, feel that he adheres to the Liberal Party or not?

Mr. Russell Kerr: Shall I go and get him?

Mr. Ridley: It would be very helpful if he could be asked his view of adherence or adhesion, which I believe is the word used within the Liberal Party. He


has told us that his leader is the only one who subscribes to the proposals in the Bill. It is difficult to understand how a party can have any adhesion when 11 of its members disagree with the leader.

Mr. Russell Kerr: It is the same proportion in our party.

Mr. Ridley: We should explore further what happens if there are changes in political attitude. All members of political parties occasionally have a relapse and vote against their party, or abstain on a Whip because they have a deep feeling of conscience and cannot agree with what has been proposed. As the Prime Minister has said, every dog is allowed one bite, but when the dogs do not stop biting action must be taken. So at some stage it will have to be declared that a certain supporter of the Government can no longer be regarded as such, or that a certain member of the Opposition can no longer be regarded as one of the nominees of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. In this case, when it is no longer just an odd example of disloyalty but a continued change of heart, will there be a procedure for changing that nominee in order to get support for the Government's policy? Will he be asked to resign?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would he forfeit his dog licence?

Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. We are coming to an important Amendment dealing with dog licences.

Sir Lionel Heald: Would it not possibly come under Clause 7—"Disqualification on account of mental illness?"

Mr. Ridley: We are, as always, extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his great knowledge of the Bill and its legal implications. That is clearly a way out, but would it be honour bound upon a peer who changed his political allegiance to resign? The Government, who are leaving a lot to chance, should make it clear whether a peer who decides to cross the Floor, to give up his Conservative policies and become a Socialist or Liberal, will be required to resign his nominated seat so that it can be filled by someone who still adheres to the party which nominated him.

Otherwise, the system will not make sense—

Mr. Orme: The hon. Member is known for his own independence. Could he enlighten the Committee on this question of nomination, which the Amendment says shall be submitted to the House of Commons for approval? I assume that these nominations will be cogitated behind the scenes by the Whips of all parties and then submitted for the approval of the House, as Committee membership and other things are submitted. Where does this democratic process start and end and what basic rights, in the end, will hon. Members have in this selection?

Mr. Ridley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was here when I suggested that the names of the peers should be read out before Questions so that hon. Members could shout, "Object!" just as when Private Bills are brought forward. A system like that would be the only way to despatch the vast amount of business, since if each name had to be debated, we could not get on.
I agree that there are difficulties and that it will be difficult to get the balance right. I can imagine arguments between the leaders of the parties. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition might have a dispute as to whether a certain peer had changed his allegiance and whether he was part of the Government majority which the Amendment calls for. This raises thoroughly unsatisfactory ideas. If we are to have such a system, all these points must be cleared up and the question of whether an erring nominee is to be disciplined at all should be answered by the Government. Otherwise, we shall be in the dark on an important aspect of the Bill.
Finally, the arithmetic needs to be cleared up. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who told us in advance that he would have to leave by 11.30 and, as usual, was accurate to the minute in his timing, entered upon this subject. To add to the confusion a little, he said that there would be 44 conversions, as the Home Secretary is pleased to call them, of Conservatives. A total of 44 hereditary peers would be made into voting peers, converted. On top of that, there are the existing Conservative life peers, who will


bring the number well above the 80 allowed in the White Paper to form the Conservative phalanx. I am not talking about non-voting peers, but only about attending peers who vote. I do not see how, by converting or "castling" 44 peers, and adding the peers of first creation and the life peers who will have the vote, we get the figure of 80, but perhaps I am muddled and the Under-Secretary can put us right.
Then there are these further 77 peers who will be hereditary peers with the right to attend but not to vote. This is the greatest trouble for the Committee, because, out of the 730 odd, we shall be left with this 77. I do not understand how anyone can tell how many of the 77 will opt to remain peers. Unless they have each been asked and canvassed, I do not see how it is possible to know. I have asked my own brother, who tells me that he has not been canvassed, so he feels rather aggrieved—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps he has been "ploughed".

Mr. Ridley: But he has not been told that, either. He has been kept on tenterhooks. He is longing to know whether he will be a voting peer or a non-voting peer or become plain "Mr." again and be equal with me, which I think is very important too.
So I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) will tell us what are the plans for the Conservative side of the new House. We must make certain in advance that, whatever is done, the Government of the day will still have a nominal majority in the House of Lords. If the confusion is not bad enough, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will add to it by answering these questions.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Not in any sense to limit discussion, I thought that it might be useful to come in after these two hours. I would deal, first, with two personal points. It seems that the "second son syndrome" rears its ugly head in the most curious places. I am sure that the words of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) will be noted. Among the

other factors which will be taken into account, I am sure that the psychological factors in families will also be considered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) had this worry which affects so many on this side, that, if they ever reach the day when they get into the Lords, their children will be of a different political persuasion. This is the whole point of the Bill. If his children, now or to be, were to change ther minds, there would be no problem in the Lords, because they would not be there. I hope that that sets his mind at rest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) will not be surprised, even if he had not heard this discussion, to hear that I would recommend that his Amendment be rejected. I should make it clear, in view of the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Why does my hon. Friend assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) would not be surprised? I noticed a surprised look on his face.

Mr. Rees: The real reason is that I know the hon. Member better than my hon. Friend does. He has a perpetual look of surprise.
In view of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, I should make it clear that I speak on behalf of the Government in support of the Bill now and on all other occasions.

The Amendment seeks to secure three dissimilar objects. I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend meant them to be logically connected, but I do not think that they are. The first is that there should be, initially, 300 voting peers instead of 230. The White Paper says that the initial size of the voting House should be about 230, excluding the Law Lords and the bishops, but that a larger number might be found necessary as the work of the House developed and expanded in future. But a larger number might be found necessary as the work of the House developed and expanded, and much would also depend on the number of nonvoting peers who attended debates in the House or served on committees and on the frequency with which they did so.

The figure of 230 is considered sufficient, provided that the non-voting peers were prepared to attend and work in reasonable numbers, at least for the remainder of this Parliament. It might well be increased in subsequent Parliaments if the amount of work grows in the House. We shall have to see. But, to preserve continuity, the number of new life peers to be created at the outset should be no larger than the work to be performed and the party balance require.

12 noon.

It is impossible in advance of reform to be sure what number of peers will be required. Size is one of the matters which it is considered in paragraph 31 of the White Paper should be referred to the Committee mentioned in that paragraph, which reads:
The Government does however see attraction in the possibility of a committee which, while possessing no power of nomination, would review periodically the composition of the reformed House and report, either to the Prime Minister or to Parliament, on any deficiencies in the balance and range of the membership of the House.

Rather than put a fixed figure in the Bill, it is much better to see what is required. There may be a case for 300 members For working purposes, but, in the Government's view, it is undesirable to write it into the Bill.

A number of hon. Members have re-referred to the figure of 230 and what it means and the number of peers that will be appointed from existing peers. I am advised that the figure of 230 was chosen as being about the number who attended more than one-third of the sittings of the House of Lords during 1966–67, the last complete year before the Inter-Party Conference. This was thought, from experience, to be about the right number for the efficient conduct of business. The number who attended one-third of the sittings in 1967–68 was higher, as will be seen from the table on page 5 of the White Paper, which is the starting point of any discussion.

The choice of the figure of 230 was based on experience in an unpaid House. To answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, do not consider that this depends on pay or otherwise because the analysis was made in an unpaid House. Therefore, it is considered that about 230

Members would be required in another place to work the reformed House with the sort of duties that they will have. The White Paper deals with this subject at length in paragraphs 46 and 47 and makes it clear that the figures might have to be changed in the light of future events. The figure of 230 does not include the Law Lords and bishops.

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

Mr. Russell Kerr: Was the figure of 230 established by reference to the attendance register, which I understand their Lordships sign, or to the number of people in the Chamber? I ask that because there have been disturbing rumours that some of their Lordships, resident in Chelsea, have been in the habit of dropping in for a drink on the way home.

Mr. Rees: One hears the most curious things. I cannot comment on that. I am sure that those who were engaged in the discussions were aware of matters of that nature, if they happen. They considered the number of Members who could work the reformed House of Lords.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I realise that the bishops occasionally render to Caesar what is Caesar's, but they have political views. Obviously, the political colouring of bishops is of importance in such a delicately balanced mechanism. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us something about that.

Mr. Rees: Perhaps I can deal with that when we consider the second part of the Amendment, which concerns the overall majority.
The principle is—and it appears from the table on page 5 of the White Paper—that 230 would comprise basically those created peers, who would be likely to be voting peers, probably those who attend one-third of the sessions already of whom there are 153. In addition, there would be sufficient new creations to give a total of 230 and this is the 77 to which reference has been made which is one-tenth of the approximately 770 hereditary peers and which would give those who wanted it a job to do in the House of Lords. The distribution of the 77 between the parties would be such as to give the right party balance—the Labour Party about 105, the Conservative


Party about 80, the Liberal and other parties 15 and the cross-benchers 30.
The Government's view about the first part of the Amendment, concerning numbers, is that it would be inappropriate to write the number of peers into the Bill. The matter is best left to develop and we should see what number is required.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does my hon. Friend realise that, in view of the representation proposed, the opposition which might be created against the Government could make certain that their legislation would not be allowed to go through? Is that why the Government are arguing about the figure of 230, and are we to understand that they can suddenly bring forward another 30 or 40 life peers?

Mr. Rees: I have been dealing with the total number of 300. I shall deal later with the second part of the Amendment, concerning an overall Government majority. My hon. Friend has anticipated what I am about to say.

The Amendment suggests that there should be an overall Government majority. There are two, if not three, principal objections to that. First, the number of new creations at the change of Government would have to be unmanageably large. I know that, in the face of the practical problems which arise, and by the nature of both Houses, the objection may not seem to be important. But it is a factor which must be taken into account. On a change of Government from one party to another, the number of new creations at the changeover would have to be unmanageably large if the previous Government had an overall majority. I do not suggest that that is an overwhelming argument, but it is one of the problems.

Mr. Russell Kerr: What arrangements have the Government in mind for a coalition situation?

Mr. Rees: I have enough on my plate without thinking about disasters.

Mr. Orme: Is not nomination by the House of Commons moving away from the basic principle of the constitution of one man, one vote? The electors on a universal franchise decide who is to sit

in the House of Commons. What right have hon. Members, whether it be the Prime Minister or anyone else, to say what is good for the country?

Mr. Rees: With respect to my hon. Friend, I grant that there is the problem of the overall majority to which I will come in a moment, but the underlying argument behind the Bill is that the House of Commons is the prime House and the Government of the day, who are elected every so often, is responsible. Nothing in my argument is saying that this power should go to the House of Lords.
If I may come back to the overall majority, first, there would be the difficulty of creations on a change of Government; secondly, if there were an automatic majority in both Houses, there would be a tendency for voting patterns in the second Chamber to reproduce those of the House of Commons, and for it to act in regard to legislation as no more than a rubber stamp.

Mr. Paget: Surely this is the whole object; this is what the Home Secretary said that he wanted to do, and he is so clever that he has achieved it.

Mr. Rees: We have recently discussed the Preamble. The Preamble, which I know my hon. and learned Friend will have read, does not suggest that it is the intention that the House of Lords should be a rubber stamp in the sense in which he used the word.

Mr. Paget: This is exactly the point which I put to the Home Secretary yesterday. He told me I was quite wrong about it, and that the so-called neutral peers were neutral because they split half and half, but there would still be a Government majority, and that is what it is all about.

Mr. Rees: In terms of the figures that I have given on the second part of the Amendment, there is not an overall majority for the Government in the reformed House of Lords.
Three things are stated in paragraph 25 of the White Paper: the fact that a peer, having once become a peer, cannot be deprived of his seat—and this refers to a point which the hon. Gentleman raised—I see that he is no longer here, so he could not have been so interested in the point.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—

Mr. Rees: I am referring to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and not to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Arthur Lewis).

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Mr. Fletcher-Cooke rose—

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Perhaps the Minister will indicate to whom he is giving way?

Mr. Rees: I am giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Minister has said that the hon. Member is not here and, therefore, he is not interested. He should bear in mind that that remark might reflect upon several hon. Members. I was upstairs in Committee. I wanted to be here, but I could not be upstairs and down here at the same time.

Mr. Rees: I read some of the proceedings of the Standing Committees and I notice with interest that the hon. Gentleman said upstairs that the Bill was so important, but only once this morning has he decided this was so important that he ought to be down here.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am sure that the Minister will withdraw the remark. My hon. Friend has gone back to his Standing Committee with reluctance.

Mr. Rees: I withdraw my remark. I simply looked up and saw that he was not there.

Mr. Roebuck: The Horserace Betting Levy Bill has now passed Committee and that accounts for my hon. Friend's presence.

Mr. Rees: I thank the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) for that remark.
To get back to paragraph 5 of the White Paper, there are three matters which ought to come before the Committee. The first is the fact that a peer, having once become a peer, cannot be deprived of his seat—to take up the point which the hon. Gentleman made before he left. Of course, there will be people who will change their minds politically; it would be odd if that did not

happen, but this will have to be looked at by the Committee as a principle. The figures which I have given do not give an overall majority in a precise party sense. Obviously, that balance will have to be maintained by the creation of further peers, but I would not have thought that it would happen on a large number of occasions. Nobody is betting that people will not change their minds; this will happen just as much as before.
Secondly, the Government intend the House to possess a degree of genuine independence based on that fact, and on the presence of a number of cross-benchers who do not owe allegiance to any party. The evidence shows that cross-benchers do not speak, vote or adhere regularly to any party, nor do they possess a sense of corporate identity, nor do they act in any way as organised members.

12.15 p.m.

Sir L. Heald: Will (he Minister say where cross-benchers appear in the body of the document or in the Preamble?

Mr. Rees: In the paragraph to which I am referring, the evidence of the presence of a number of cross-benchers who do not owe allegiance to any party.

Sir L. Heald: They are mentioned in the White Paper, but nowhere else.

Mr. Rees: I am sorry, I misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
To come back to the point we were discussing yesterday, in terms of the meaning of the Preamble as it affected the future, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a learned lawyer, and all I stand by is the remark made by my right hon. and learned Friend which he took from Maxwell on the Interpretation of the Statutes. The Preamble of a Statute has been said to be a good way of finding out its meaning and a key to the understanding of it. I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but I do not think the meaning of Preambles arises under the Amendment which we are discussing.
The third part of my hon. Friend's Amendment is the suggestion that the names of the nominees should be submitted to the House of Commons for approval, and that the House of Commons should be a vetting body. I do not think that it would be appropriate for this


to be done, not only party-wise but for it to be done at all. It would be embarrassing to discuss the respective merits and demerits of individuals. The third part of my hon. Friend's Amendment is the one with the least merit.
I have dealt with the three parts of the Amendment and we have had a wide-ranging debate, but my recommendation to the Committee is that the Amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: May I, first, take up the point which the Under-Secretary of State made in reply to my right hon. and learned Friend: he cannot rely on the Preamble to the Bill in support of the suggestion that, however remotely, the cross-bench peers were in the Bill. There is no mention in the Preamble of the cross-bench peers, and perhaps therefore, the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to withdraw that argument so that no further time is wasted on it.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping to clear up one mystery. He made the remarkable statement for an Under-Secretary replying to an Amendment that he was in favour of the Bill. This takes us back, Mr. Gourlay, as, if you had been in the Chair you would have recalled, to the speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who said that only three Ministers were in favour of the Bill. We now know that the Under-Secretary of State is in favour of it, so this narrows the field of inquiry to two, unless the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, in a kind of official snobbery, was not treating Under-Secretaries of State as Ministers at all.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: That, too, was at 12 midday. The right hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that it is now twenty minutes past noon.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged for that helpful contribution. I agree that things are moving fast.

Mr. Rees: I apologise for not getting up straight away. I had mislaid the Bill. I was referring to the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2, where it states:
…members adhering to other parties and members adhering to no party.
That is what I had in mind.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not intend to pursue it further. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that merely to say
members adhering to no party
is more a statement of the obvious than a statement of an important feature of the scheme under which a definite element was to be created with a balance in the House. The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly read that into the obvious and platitudinous statement that peers can adhere to no party. He cannot read into that the whole elaborate structure of a phalanx of cross-bench peers controlling the balance in the Upper House. The hon. Gentleman has a good reputation, but he will not improve it if he seeks to rely on that sort of argument.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Surely these Lords are Lords spiritual in the true sense of the word, because they have no views, no presence in law and no legal existence.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As a grandson of a former Lord spiritual, I am not prepared to accept that, even from my right hon. Friend, even if I did not suspect just a nuance of sectarian animosity in his intervention. I have the highest regard for peers spiritual, present and past.
I beg the Under-Secretary, though he withdrew it under pressure, not to make reference at these morning sittings to hon. Members who have spoken and are not here. The Under-Secretary is a member of a Government who have put hon. Members to the extreme inconvenience, after a decision announced at 11.30 last night, of continuing the proceedings on the Bill this morning. The Under-Secretary should know, if he does not, that most of us have obligations for the following morning which are not easy to shed when the Government suddenly take a decision at half past eleven at night. Therefore, it would be more graceful if he desisted from that practice.

Mr. Rees: I had, in fact, withdrawn that. There is all the difference between somebody who, the night before, finds it difficult to attend and someone who does attend and goes. I have apologised to the hon. Gentleman in question. I did not realise that he had gone to a Standing Committee.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not accept the distinction, but I accept the apology.

Mr. Russell Kerr: The right hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that I am making heavy weather of it. A fair distinction is not made by criticising those who come and then go. That is a difficulty imposed upon an hon. Member by the action of the Government in altering the business as late as half past eleven the night before, thereby putting hon. Members in the position of having to do their honest best to do simultaneously two jobs in two different places. I do not think that the Under-Secretary will facilitate these morning sittings, if they persist in future, if he takes this line.
I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's dismissal of his hon. Friend's argument that the Prime Minister's apparent abandonment of payment of Members of the Upper House had no effect upon numbers. This simply cannot be so. The number of whole-time paid professionals required to run a second Chamber must be smaller than the number of unpaid amateurs. If Members of another place are not to be paid—and we have the Prime Minister's statement that that is so—it is plain that, unless the Government are to appoint as voting peers only rich men, those appointed to another place will have to earn their living in other ways.
That means that they will not be able to attend as frequently as those whose main means of livelihood is membership of another place. That must be self-evident. If Members cannot attend to the same extent, because they are engaged in earning their living, it is common sense, if the work of another place is to be done properly, that the membership will have to be larger. I do not think that the Under-Secretary apprehended the argument, which came first, I think rightly, from behind him, that the change made by the Prime Minister on Second Reading must have a very significant bearing on what would be the workable size of another place.

Mr. Rees: The analysis that was made to get to the figure of 230 was based on another place with unpaid Members, except in the sense which we know. Therefore, on any mathematical analysis, without expecting to get certainty, if we

make a deduction based on fact, as of now, we will achieve a certain amount of accuracy—not more than general—about the number who will attend in future. There has been no change.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the matter stopped there, it would be an acceptable and, indeed, logical argument. But it does not. It was inherent in the White Paper scheme—and if the Under-Secretary wants his memory refreshing, it is set out in paragraph 52—that these Members should be paid.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will give way in a moment.
The White Paper clearly states:
The Government considers that Members without private means should not thereby be prevented from playing a full part, and therefore proposes that voting peers should in future receive some remuneration …
The Government's scheme—we have heard the expression used before—was a "package". The Prime Minister, for reasons which he did not state, but which most of us found little difficulty in guessing, withdrew one item from the package. He withdrew remuneration from the package. Therefore, if it was the Government's view that a paid and, therefore, presumably pretty well full-time House of 230 was required, it must inescapably follow that when that House becomes unpaid—its Members bound to earn their living elsewhere unless only rich men are to be appointed—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or Ministers."]—to do the same amount of work it must have a larger membership. Surely the Under-Secretary can appreciate that proposition.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, amongst the innumerable official and semi-official leaks which we had and have to the Press, there was an officially inspired leak that there was to be a £2,000 payment until, rightly, a number of right hon. Gentlemen said that that would be unfair and it was then withdrawn?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I was aware of the leaks to the Press. But, under the present Administration, these are on such a scale that it is difficult for the ordinary Member, without excessive secretarial assistance, to keep track of all of them.
I must not anticipate what I think will be the next Amendment that you, Mr. Gourlay, will call, but a figure of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) would probably be the lowest that would be put forward.

Mr. Paget: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's argument based on an assumption which has been demonstrated to be false, namely, that the Bill was the result of a logical process? Quite obviously, it was not. The calculation of 230 is based on a figure drawn from unpaid peers, and nobody was logical enough to see that it did not apply to paid peers.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not mistake my habitual courtesy for an impression that I am taken in by the Government's so-called logic. It is courteous and usual to assume that the occupants of the Treasury Bench are not certifiably insane, although there are sometimes circumstances when it becomes a little difficult to maintain that view. However, I am, on the whole, of a courteous nature. Therefore, I have been proceeding and founding my argument on that. If the Under-Secretary will get up and say now that he admits there is no logic at all in these numbers or in the Bill, I will abandon the argument.

Mr. Rees: All that I am prepared to say to the right hon. Gentleman is that the analysis which gave the figure of 230 was based on unpaid membership in the terms which the Prime Minister stated. Therefore, the 230 is based on the original analysis, which still stands.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If it is based on the original analysis, it follows, from the hon. Gentleman's statement, that it never occurred to anybody in the Government that if 230 was based on unpaid membership, it must be wrong on the basis of paid membership. Surely the Under Secretary of State is capable of appreciating the different amount of attendance to be expected from, and indeed provided by, those who are receiving a respectable salary, and those who are bound to earn their living elsewhere? All the hon. Gentleman is now saying is that his argument of 230 is based on the fact that in considering this matter the Government were so slapdash

that they did not realise the difference in the number required on a paid and an unpaid basis.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Howie: We keep reminding ourselves that there has been some kind of package deal, a bargain, or agreement, between the two Front Benches. The Front Bench opposite should be present to tell us about its part in the drafting of the Bill. We cannot lump the whole of this on to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, of whom I am extremely fond. The Front Bench opposite must bear its share of the responsibility.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I go with the hon. Gentleman on this, that the paternity of the Bill, like that of certain other undesirable creatures, is a mixture of law and fact. But the fact remains that the Government are presenting the Bill, and it is, therefore, for them to satisfy the House of Commons that it—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I am sliding away from anything. I hope that I have succeeded at least in indicating to him that I am against the Bill.
This is now a Government Bill, and it is the duty of Ministers to satisfy the House of Commons that the proposals in it are right. To do the Under-Secretary of State justice, I do not think that he is trying to slide away from that. He is providing an argument which demonstrates the extremely slapdash manner in which the Bill has been constructed. This was confirmed—I think that it was the day before yesterday—by the Secretary of State for Social Services, when, in a moment of engaging candour, he said that the Government had had great difficulty in drafting the Bill.
As the Under-Secretary of State is so anxious to tell us how these numbers were arrived at, perhaps we might probe further into this famous figure of 77. It has an air of somewhat bogus precision. If the hon. Gentleman had said "about 80", that might have been thought to be an estimate. Nobody, not even in Whitehall, gets down to an approximate estimate of 77. This figure must be based on a compilation of names. Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to tell the Committee that names have not been looked at in this connection, and that this number is not based simply on


adding up a list of names which have been regarded as probables?

Mr. Rees: I can speak only for the Labour Party. There are a large number of hereditary peers in the other place. Any selection on that aspect would be for the right hon. Gentleman's side, and no doubt somebody from that side will eventually turn up who can tell him about that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman says that he can speak only for the Labour Party. Is he saying that the Labour Party's constituent figures in this total are not based on a consideration of individual names?

Mr. Rees: All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that the analysis was based on the number who have turned up. I know of no list, and no names.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman knows of no list, and he is, therefore, asking the Committee to accept that this figure of 77, with its air of spurious precision, is based simply on a mathematical exercise based on prior attendance.

Mr. Rees: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at she figures which I gave, he will see that in terms of about 230 members my right hon. Friend last night talked of "about 77", and I used that figure this morning. There is no mathematical certainty about it. It is not one-tenth of 770, but about the number required in addition to the life peers to bring the total to about 230.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman gives the impression of being less precise than his right hon. Friend was yesterday. The Committee is now to understand that 77 is not necessarily the actual figure; that it may be appreciably different. It is very useful to have elicited that information, because it is only by taking a certain amount of trouble that one can find out what is happening in connection with this matter.
I join the Under-Secretary of State in rather regretfully indicating that I, too, cannot support the Amendment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) has done the Committee a good service by causing us to consider

this question of numbers, and by giving us the opportunity, however slowly and painfully, to extract from the Under-Secretary of State some information as to their significance, and as to the processes by which they were arrived at.
When one looks at the terms of the Amendment, one sees that it would be unworkable. What about the expression,
supporters of the Government of the day."?
What would a court have to take into account in deciding whether a member of another place was, or was not, a supporter of the Government of the day? Would, for example, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) so qualify? Would the hon. Member for Luton so qualify? What percentage, or proportion, of deviations from the Whip would be permitted without forfeting the qualification of being a supporter of the Government of the day? Perhaps this is an even more optimistic question—would the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) so qualify?

Mr. Howie: I leave the measurement of deviations to the mathematicians. Deciding this would be a simple matter. Presumably the matter would have to be decided by the possession of a fully paid up party card.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I dislike taking a drafting point against the hon. Gentleman, but if that were to be the definition he should have tabled as an Amendment an additional Schedule scheduling a party membership card of the Labour Party as a qualification. In all seriousness, this shows the proposal to be unworkable. There is the further point that those so appointed might not follow the definition which I believe is given in certain parts of the United States of an honest politician, "When you have been squared you stay squared".

Mr. Orme: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us his view about some cross-benchers now in the House of Lords—the noble Lords Wigg, Butler, Hill, and Aylestone? How will they fit into this situation? This is an extremely important matter. Will they be drafted into one of the parties, will they be dropped, or will they sit on the cross-benches and become "Don't knows"?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman poses to me a point so difficult to answer that if I were in charge of the Bill my only response would be to offer to withdraw the Measure.
This is an extremely serious point. The gaiety, the life, and the brilliance of another place would be enormously diminished if the noble Lords mentioned by the hon. Gentleman were to withdraw from the counsels of another place, but their precise political categorisation at any time is an intellectual exercise which I would find it extremely difficult to achieve. Yet this is inherent in the proposals—and the hon. Gentleman was right to introduce this—not so much in the Amendment, though it is related to it, or it would not have been selected for debate, but more conspicuously in the Government's scheme. Yet this is precisely the kind of situation which the Government have not foreseen.
It is clear that the 30 cross-bench peers—I trust we shall have no dispute about that figure—who will be voting will not be selected from the able and brilliant people who now sit on the cross-benches because, apart from anything else, such people have so much to do that they could not meet the clock punching one-out-of-three qualification for voting. One of my reasons for disliking the Government's scheme is that it would take out of the main stream of another place many of those who, with their knowledge and experience and ability, are contributing so splendidly to it.
The fact that I cannot support the Amendment in the Lobby must not be deemed an indication that I am satisfied by the wholly inadequate reply given by the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Michael Foot: The Amendment has not been received with universal acclaim. I hope that this will not deter my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) from proceeding with other Amendments. We all like to see those who have graduated from the Whips Office to higher quarters. They rise on stepping stones of their dead selves to higher things. My hon. Friend has done an essential service in enabling this debate to take place.

Mr. Howie: I already have an Amendment in the next group for discussion.

Mr. Foot: I will be glad to be here, if we ever reach it.
The great merit of the Amendment before us now is that it enables us to discuss the size of the proposed new Chamber in a way we were unable to do before, at any rate in such detail. One would think that, in setting up a new Chamber, the question of size would be almost the first to be decided. I do not claim special priority for it, but it is obviously of great importance.
I have listened to most of the discussion. But even now we do not know who is to decide the size of the new Chamber. It is not in the Bill. It is not in the Preamble. It is not in the White Paper. It may be buried in the package agreement between the two Front Benches, but we have not been told exactly what that was.
If the Bill goes through in this form, none of us will be able to say what the size of the second Chamber is to be. No one will be able to tell us, and we will not be able to tell anyone else, how it is to be varied from the figure of 230. Who is to do it? Is it to be the House of Commons? Is there to be an amending Bill to deal with the situation? As far as I can see, there would have to be an amending Bill to establish the size. It is astonishing that we should be asked to pass a Bill setting up a new Chamber when we cannot even discover what the likely size is to be nor how it is to be decided in the end.
In these permutations, we have the further difficulty that we do not know how the figure of 77 was arrived at and what are to be the numbers at the beginning of each new Parliament. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, that this is not one of the main objections to the Amendment, since it would involve the appointment of peers for a single Parliament. But if we were to fix a figure of 300 and then had to ensure a Government majority, then each time there was a General Election it would mean that the numbers in the other place would have to be increased. What would be the figure in the geometrical progression by the end of the century after successive general elections?
12.45 p.m.
But it is much more important to talk about the Government's proposals. What


we want to discover, as we are entitled to do, is the figure which the Government have in mind as the total of the new Chamber and how the peers are to be divided up. As a House of Commons, we are entitled rightly and properly to put these questions to the Government and to those who are parties to the bargain In one sense, as I shall illustrate, we are even more entitled to put these questions to the Opposition Front Bench than to the Government. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) is not here, since this largely arises from what he has said.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary defends these propositions in the skilful manner that we expect. He does not say that this is a magnificent Bill, or anything of the sort. He says, "This is what I am landed with and I bring it to the House of Commons". He does not defend the whole Bill. When he finds any part of it under attack, he has the skillful method of saying, "This happens to be part of the package that I did not like". As we move from Clause to Clause—and I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is not here—we shall no doubt find other parts of the package which he dislikes.
My right hon. Friend is an old, confirmed politician. He says, "A member of the Government has to look after his friends and cannot betray his Cabinet colleagues on the Floor of the House, whatever we say elsewhere. We have to proceed with the Bill, so look at it in that sense and do not press me about these points. I do not know much more about it than you do". Thus, no one will be more surprised than my right hon. Friend to find what a good defence can be made of his proposals, as has been demonstrated today by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. My hon. Friend has found the best form of defence for this proposal that could be devised.
The Opposition Front Bench has put itself in a peculiar position, because the right hon. Member for Barnet says two things at the same time. I invite hon. Members to draw their deductions. I do not know whether those sitting on the Front Bench opposite at the moment are authorised to speak as well as to be present, although I know that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border

(Mr. Whitelaw) is not entitled to speak. First, the right hon. Member for Barnet says that there is no bargain. Then he says that he is in favour of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Barnet is, therefore, in the unique position of supporting the Bill on its merits.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Asbton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that there are two members of the Government who also support it?

Mr. Foot: I thought that that figure was rather high when my hon. Friend gave it.
To be fair, my remarks should perhaps not apply only to the right hon. Member for Barnet. Other right hon. Gentlemen opposite have strayed in from time to time. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) appeared for at least five minutes yesterday and on one occasion the Leader of the Opposition was here for about seven minutes. Each of them came in to see that things were going all right, since they had agreed to the package, and as everything appeared to be fine, they left, leaving the right hon. Member for Barnet to defend the Measure on its merits.
The right hon. Member for Barnet does not see the Bill as an absurd, cockeyed edifice. He does not regard it as a ramshackle construction. To him, the Bill is a magnificent building and he treasures every elaborate obtrusion and fantastic gargoyle. He thinks that it is an achitectural masterpiece. If the Opposition really feel that way, they should be here to give the Government more assistance.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Perhaps it is because the Opposition have been giving the Government assistance behind the scenes that the Government are in such a mess over the Bill.

Mr. Foot: If the Government are in a mess I am not sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite are in a position to help. [Laughter.]
We must consider this matter seriously. It is not something to laugh about, because we are in a serious position. We are trying, by the Amendment, to discover some elementary facts about the


size and composition of the new Chamber. Despite the eagerness of the Government spokesman to assist us today, at the end of this morning's sitting we are in greater confusion about what is to occur than we were three hours ago. Certain figures have been suggested, hinted at or vaguely described. Are these figures part of the bargain, or has the bargain been drastically altered? Not only the House of Commons, but Members of the other place are entitled to a considered statement from the Opposition Front Bench on their attitude to the Bill.
Nobody can deny that the Bill has been very heavily knocked about in all quarters since our deliberations began some days ago. We are serious people and we would not be giving our time to the matter if it were not a serious one. The spokesman for the Liberal Party suggested that there was something wrong in our giving time to it. We do not want to do this. We are giving our time because we believe that the Measure, as drafted, will inflict serious injury to Parliament. Part of our duty is not merely to think about the popular mood of the moment, but about the long-term consequences that may be involved.

Mr. Hooson: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman appreciated what I said. I did not say that it was an unimportant Measure. I said that if the Government had a proper sense of priorities they would not have wasted so much Parliamentary time on this Measure, but would have been doing something about the many important issues that are outstanding.

Mr. Foot: I know what the hon. and learned Gentleman said.
Many of us regard this as an important Bill. Many of us have been fighting for years against the establishment of what we think will be the sort of second Chamber that will be the outcome of this bargain. Some of us oppose the Measure on this ground. Others, notably on the benches opposite, oppose it on different grounds. Nevertheless, we are all concerned about the long-term welfare of the country. For this reason, important questions arise, such as how Parliament is to operate in the next century. This is a serious matter on which hon. Members probably have wiser ideas than people outside Parliament. It is a matter

on which, as has been shown, back benchers may have had more time to reflect than some Members of the Government.
Not only is it wrong for the Bill to be pressed through in this manner; it is equally wrong that one Clause after another should be disposed of without any verdict being offered by right hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench. Whether or not they like it, they are supporters of the Bill. They are the enthusiastic backers of it. That being so, they must, at any rate as a matter of courtesy, answer their back benchers.
At least, Government spokesmen have answered the questions posed by my hon. Friends. They have explained why, in their view, certain Amendments should not be accepted, and I do not even complain about the presence of the Home Secretary from time to time, or of the answers given by the Secretary of State for the Social Services. They have at least been here to answer us, which is more than can be said of the Opposition Front Bench.
During the short time that the right hon. Member for Barnet was here he raised a point with the Attorney-General but did not attempt to answer any of the questions put by his hon. Friends. Do the members of the Opposition Front Bench regard the arguments being adduced by their hon. Friends as derisory? Do they wish to treat them with contempt? I do not think so. They are serious men and appreciate that they are faced with serious arguments.
I hope that I have said enough to convince hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should convey to the leaders of the Conservative Party the view, which must be shared by all hon. Members, that it is their duty to answer arguments adduced on matters of major constitutional importance, matters which will shape the future conduct of Parliament for generations to come. It is not merely the duty of the Government to subject themselves to examination in the House of Commons. It is also the duty, particularly on a matter of this kind, of the leaders of the Conservative Party. Parliament is today asking whether the leaders of the Conservative Party intend to discharge their obligations to the House of Commons in this matter.

Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mrs. Ewing: No. On a point of order.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I must put the Question.

Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. There can be no point of order at this stage.

Mrs. Ewing (seated and covered): On a point of order. I thought that I was being particularly careful in getting to my feet before the Whip claimed the Question, Mr. Gourlay.
My point of order stems from the fact that I have been trying to speak throughout the morning, as you will be aware. I was present throughout the Second Reading debate, from 3.30 p.m. till 9 p.m., and following a short break, until 10 p.m. without being called.
I have a contribution to make to the debate. I have a particular point of view which is becoming more and more relevant to the discussion which we have been having on this subject. I ask you, Mr. Gourlay, to reopen the matter so that I may have an opportunity to speak, particularly as I thought that I was on my feet to raise a point of order before the Whip rose to claim the Question.

The Deputy Chairman: When the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) resumed his seat the Chair listened to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley). It is not for the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) to determine which should be taken first. I have no doubt that many other hon. Members have been disappointed because they have not been called, but the debate on the Bill will continue for some time.

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mrs. Ewing (seated and covered): On a point of order. It may be that I have not put my point sufficiently clearly. It would be fair to say that I have made genuine attempts to raise my voice on this matter. I was the only hon. Member to sit through Second Reading, and today I have not had the opportunity to express my point of view on behalf of a large interest.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Many hon. Members sit through Second Reading Committee stage debates, but the hon. Lady must take her chance with other members of the Committee. I am sure that the opportunity will be presented to her in future.

The Committee having divided:— Ayes 142, Noes 64.

Division No. 85.]
AYES
[12.58 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dunn, James A.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Archer, Peter
Dunnett, Jack
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Eadle, Alex
Hoy, James


Bence, Cyril
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. cledwyn (Anglesey)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ellis, John
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bishop, E. S.
English, Michael
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hil)


Blackburn, F.
Ensor, David
Janner, Sir Barnett


Boston, Terence
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Faulds, Andrew
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Finch, Harold
Kelley, Richard


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Foley, Maurice
Lawson, George


Carmichael, Neil
Ford, Ben
Leadbitter, Ted


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fowler, Gerry
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Coe, Denis
Freeson, Reginald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Concannon, J. D.
Garrett, W. E.
Lipton, Marcus


Conlan, Bernard
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Loughlin, Charles


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Luard, Evan


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McBride, Neil


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McCann, John


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hamling, William
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Roes&Crom'ty)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hannan, William
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mackie, John


Dempsey, James
Haseldine, Norman
Maclennan, Robert


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hazell, Bert
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Dobson, Ray
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
McNamara, J. Kevin


Doig, Peter
Hobden, Dennis
MacPherson, Malcolm




Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Pentland, Norman
Taverne, Dick


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Mikardo, Ian
Probert, Arthur
Tinn, James


Millan, Bruce
Rees, Merlyn
Urwin, T. W.


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Moonman, Eric
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Wallace, George


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Morris, Alfred (Wytherrshawe)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Moyle, Roland
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wilkins, W. A.


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


O'Malley, Brian
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Clifford, (Abertillery)


Oram, Albert E.
Short. Rt. Hn. Edwand (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Orbach, Maurice
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Woof, Robert


Oswald, Thomas
Silverman, Julius



Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Skeffington, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Small, William
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Walter Harrison.


Pavitt, Laurence
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)



NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Heffer, Eric S.
Roebuck, Roy


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hill, J. E. B.
Royle, Anthony


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hooson, Emlyn
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brewis, John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Sheldon, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Hunt, John
Silvester, Frederick


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Taylor, Edward M.(G, gow, Cathcart)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Temple, John M,


Channon, H. P. G.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Cooke, Robert
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Tilney, John


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenehire, W.)
MacArthur, Ian
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Driberg, Tom
Maude, Angus
Ward, Dame Irene


Emery, Peter
Monro, Hector
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Montgomery, Fergus
Wright, Esmond


Eyre, Reginald
Orme, Stanley
Younger, Hn. George


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)



Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Sir Douglas Glover and


Gresham Cooke, R.
Prior, J. M. L.
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Pym, Francis

Question, That the Amendment be made, put accordingly and negatived.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Peart.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Mr. George Lawson discharged from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration; Mr. Will Griffiths and Mr. Stanley Henig added.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

ESTIMATES

Mr. Robert Maclennan and Mr. Will Griffiths discharged from the Estimates Committee; Mr. Fred Evans and Mr. W. Howie added.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts; Mr. Kevin McNamara added.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

ADJOURNMENT

The Business having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes past One o'clock p.m.

Second Reading Committee

Wednesday, 19th February, 1969

[MRS. LENA JEGER in the Chair]

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Mrs. Lena Jeger (in the Chair)

Alison, Mr. Michael (Barkston Ash)

Allason, Mr. James (Hemel Hempstead)

Bishop, Mr. E. S. (Newark)

Blenkinsop, Mr. Arthur (South Shields)

Cooke, Mr. Robert (Bristol, West)

Driberg, Mr. Tom (Barking)

English, Mr. Michael (Nottingham, West)

Harper, Mr. Joseph (Pontefract)

Jackson, Mr. Peter M. (The High Peak)

Mills, Mr. Peter (Torrington)

More, Mr. Jasper (Ludlow)

Parker, Mr. John (Dagenham)

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Skeffington, Mr. Arthur (Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Local Government)

Smith, Mr. John (Cities of London and Westminster)

Thornton, Mr. Ernest (Farnworth)

van Straubenzee, Mr. W. R. (Wokingham)

Watkins, Mr. David (Consett)

Wilkins, Mr. W. A. (Bristol, South)

Worsley, Mr. Marcus (Chelsea)

Mr. Bradshaw, Committee Clerk

REDUNDANT CHURCHES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS BILL

[First Sitting]

10.30 a.m.

Resolved:
That if the proceedings on the Redundant Churches and other Religious Buildings Bill are not completed at this day's sitting, the Committee do meet on Wednesday next at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Redundant Churches and other Religious Buildings Bill ought to be read a Second time.
I am sure that this Measure, short though it is, will commend itself to all members of the Committee for it is a compound of a common sense provision and a financial provision, to enable those churches or places of religious worship

which are no longer required for their original purpose to be preserved. The fund, which is being set up specially for this purpose and to which the Government will contribute, will enable those buildings to be preserved so that we shall not be faced again with the kind of heartrending experience which most of us must have had in the past. One thinks of the kind of destruction which took place at the turn of the century, even in the City of London, of old churches, but now these great heritages from the past can be properly preserved under a scheme which will look after them and will make all the necessary safeguarding provisions. Therefore, what has been regarded by many people throughout the world as one of our great heritages—the large numbers of churches, often delightfully situated—which may, because of the effluxion


of time, be no longer required for their original purpose, will be preserved wherever possible, especially when they are of special architectural or historic interest.
The Measure has three main objects. First of all, it will authorise payments into the Redundant Churches Fund to be set up under the Pastoral Measure for the preservation of redundant churches of the Church of England of historic or architectural interest and which, as the Pastoral Measure says, ought to be preserved in the interests of the nation and the Church of England.
Secondly, it excludes churches of the Church of England, whose demolition is provided for under an approved pastoral or redundancy scheme under the Pastoral Measure, from the preservation control of Section 40 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968. These provisions apply only to England.
The third provision enables historic places of worship belonging to other denominations and faiths to be acquired by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. This last provision applies to Wales but the first two do not, because there is no Established Church in Wales; it was disestablished more than 60 years ago. This enables churches of historic or architectural merit to be preserved by the method of transfer. The Pastoral Measure included similar provisions in relation to acquisition by the Minister of Public Building and Works, to acquire buildings belonging to the Church of England, and this Bill amends the Pastoral Measure to facilitate their acquisition by the Minister of Housing and Local Government who now discharges functions which, at the time of the original Measure, were discharged by the Minister of Public Building and Works.
The Bill has its origins in the Commission appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in December, 1958. Paragraph 1 of its terms of reference stated very precisely that it was
to consider the problems arising in connection with churches regarded as redundant but having a claim to preservation on historic or architectural grounds and to make recommendations as to the procedures for handling such matters and the financial problems involved".

The Commission was under the chairmanship of Lord Bridges. It duly reported and a good many of its recommendations were subsequently incorporated in the Pastoral Measure, 1968. I understand that that Measure will come into operation on 1st April this year. As the full title of the Measure states, its objects include the making of
better provision for the cure of souls and for the use, preservation or disposal of redundant churches
where that is thought appropriate.
Under Section 42 of that Measure an Advisory Board is to be appointed by the Archbishops and the Prime Minister, to advise the Church Commissioners about the historic and architectural qualities of churches to be declared redundant.
Secondly, a Redundant Churches Fund is to be appointed under section 45, to preserve in the interests of the nation and the Church of England, churches and parts of churches of historic or architectural interest vested in the fund, and the Church Commissioners are empowered to make a contribution of up to £200,000 to the fund in the first five years from the operation of the Measure. As I said earlier, this question of helping in the preservation of historic churches is not controversial in a party sense, and as long ago as July, 1964, the then Minister of Public Building and Works stated that the Government would contribute an equal amount. Since that date certain functions exercised by that Minister have been passed to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, which is why I am speaking this morning. Clause 3 of the Bill substitutes a reference to the Minister of Housing and Local Government for the reference to the Minister of Public Building and Works in Section 66 of the Pastoral Measure.
The Committee may like to know the size of the problem. No precise estimate can be made, because that would require the detailed examination which will be made in the various dioceses as time passes. But there seem to be something like 800 churches which may become redundant over the next 20 years. That is a fairly substantial figure but it is not thought that anything like 800 would come into the categories which this Measure is designed to help. The best estimate that the ecclesiastical authorities can make is that between 300 and


400 such churches may attract the attention and care of the fund.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the Minister confirm that the Church of England will decide in the case of its churches which ones are worth preserving on architectural grounds, and that, in any case, if the Church of England wishes to demolish a church, whatever its achitectural merit, it will still be enabled to do so?

Mr. Skeffington: Yes, and this is why the Pastoral Measure provided for the setting up of this special body which is to advise the ecclesiastical authorities about the historic and architectural merits. This is, of course, entirely a matter for the Established Church. The capital cost of putting those 300 or 400 churches into a reasonable state of repair is very difficult to estimate and must be very approximate. The capital cost over the next 20 years is likely to be—I should not like to be tied to this—between £1,500,000 and £2 million.
As regards the Minister's powers to acquire places of worship other than those belonging to the Established Church, I should make it clear that, generally speaking, the Ministry will be able to give help only in cases of exceptional value judged on either or both of the tests, though it will obviously try to preserve all those buildings which are worthy and which should be preserved for access by the public, or for some other use in suitable circumstances.
At first sight, Clause 2 of the Bill, which exempts from listed building control a building declared redundant under a scheme approved under the Pastoral Measure, hardly affects a Measure for the preservation of buildings. In fact, this Clause adapts in more limited form a provision already enacted in the Pastoral Measure. Before the Pastoral Committee of a diocese recommends to the bishop that a scheme be prepared, it must consult the interested parties, who include the local planning authority, and it must ascertain the views of the Council for the Care of Churches before any proposal that a church is considered to be redundant. At a later stage the Advisory Board has to be consulted, and if it considers that the church is of the

quality to which I have already referred, then there has to be a waiting period of at least a year while efforts are made to find a suitable use for the building, during which period it remains in the care of the diocesan board of finance.
It is very important that there should be proper consultation with all the bodies, so that no church is declared redundant unless the matter has been most carefully considered; and, secondly, that before destruction or alteration of the building takes place every effort must be made to see whether there is some alternative use.
When the Pastoral Measure was enacted, the former system of preservation control by building preservation order was in force, and Section 91 of the Measure, which Clause 2 of this Bill amends, provided that a building preservation order could not be made during the waiting period. Under this Clause the new method of preservation control will apply during the waiting period. Those Members who had the delights of sitting on the Town and Country Planning Bill last year will recall that these become listed buildings as from 1st January and automatically attract a certain preservation character which can be altered only after the proper procedure has been gone through. The provision was generally felt to be of great value in relation to historic buildings or buildings of great merit and to give far greater security than existed previously. It will apply during the waiting period.

Mr. James Allason: Could the Minister help us over this matter? The Bill appears to exempt a redundant church from Section 40 of the Town and Country Planning Act in relation to whether or not it should be a listed building. Would all the other Sections not apply to a redundant church?

Mr. Skeffington: Certainly all the preservation status applies during the waiting period until the procedures are gone through and the church is declared redundant. But up to that time the building is fully covered by Section 40 of the Town and Country Planning Act. After the waiting period has elapsed and the procedures have been gone through and approved by all those who have to


approve them, demolition can then take place. I was emphasising that the new procedure of the Town and Country Planning Act will help during this period.
I should also point out that this Clause, unlike the provision in the Pastoral Measure, does not exempt from preservation control alterations to adapt a redundant church to another use. It is important that where this occurs the objects of the Town and Country Planning Act are retained in regard to the character of the building and the fact that alterations have to be approved by the local planning authority and, if need be, by the Minister, and this will be the case.
It may be asked why the Bill does not provide in terms for the Minister to acquire redundant churches or other religious buildings belonging to other bodies than the Established Church. The reason this is not included in the Bill is that the Minister already has this power under Section 5 of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953, and therefore no provision in this respect needs to be made in the Bill. By virtue of that power the Minister may accept as a gift any building appearing to him to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest. The Minister concerned is now the Minister of Housing and Local Government, or in Wales the Secretary of State and not the Minister of Public Building and Works. This was provided for under Article 4 of the Transfer of Functions (Building Control and Historic Buildings) Order, Statutory Instrument No. 692, which was approved by the House of Commons in 1966. I put this on record so that at a later stage the authority of my Ministry will not be questioned.
The remaining Clauses of the Bill relate to religious buildings belonging to bodies other than the Church of England, and the Committee will see the provisions which have been made for them. It is not considered likely that there may be many other such buildings, but it would be very foolish not to make provision for those other buildings, if any exist. In my own constituency there is a Baptist Church hall, which must have been one of the earliest, erected some time after the Cromwellian period. That might be

the sort of building which could come within these provisions if it were felt necessary to preserve the building. The provisions of the Bill will enable this to be done in suitable cases.

Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill add to the general law of charities to enable the trustees of a redundant church to hand it over to the Minister and to enable provision to be made for the building to be used again for public worship, if that is thought desirable. A church may become vested in the Ministry and subsequently, because of some new development, it may be desired that that church should revert to its original use. This can be provided for in the Clauses to which I have referred.

I believe it is true to say that at one stage the Methodist interest in Wales was somewhat apprehensive because there was no power of appeal in the event of a dispute about the handing over to the Ministry of a building of this character. An appeal procedure is not required because in relation to any place of worship other than those for which special provision is made in the Church of England the transfer can only be by agreement. The initiative remains with the trustees and with nobody else, and the trustees can make the transfer or not. It is entirely a matter for them. Consequently, there is no need for an appeal procedure.

I hope that the Committee will feel that this is a useful Measure. It has been agreed with all the interests concerned, and the Government under the terms of the Bill are to make their own contribution to the fund in accordance with the undertaking given as long ago as 1964. I am sorry that it has taken so long to get the promise translated into reality, but it will be by this Bill. We will have taken a considerable step forward in preserving, in an orderly way, those buildings which are no longer required for religious purposes but which are worthy of preservation. I hope that the Bill will receive the unanimous approval of the Committee.

Sir Frank Pearson: Before the Minister sits down, could he explain how the disposal of churchyards fits in with this Measure? Is it to be dealt with entirely separately? The Bill applies to the church building itself, and not to the churchyard.

Mr. Skeffington: The position is that usually a church has surrounding it a certain amount of land within the curtilage which is described as "church and land" and which will be covered by the provision. If there is land in addition to that, it will have to be subject to the normal transfers for which there is provision in other pastoral measures and in other general statutes.

10.53 a.m.

Mr. James Allason: We on this side of the Committee welcome this Bill which, as the Minister has said, authorises Government contributions to the Redundant Churches Fund and provides for the preservation, in the interests of the nation and of the Church of England, of Church of England buildings and also of places used for religious worship by other denominations. The important matter is the provision by the Government of £200,000 every five years to the Redundant Churches Fund. We on this side of the Committee do not always approve of all Government increases in expenditure, but I am sure that everybody welcomes this expenditure.
The fund, as I understand it, will receive as a result of this Bill a contribution of £200,000 from the Government, £200,000 from the Church Commissioners under the Pastoral Measure, and, in addition, up to £100,000 being one-third of the proceeds of sale of churches which are made redundant and which are not required to be preserved and of the assets which are sold off, whether the building is demolished or not. The maximum which the fund can receive is £500,000 over five years. This will probably not go the whole way, but will be of great help in dealing with the average of 40 churches a year which the Minister expects will come under survey.
I was not quite clear from the Parliamentary Secretary about the exact sequence of events which will occur when a church becomes redundant. I assume that the Diocesan Redundant Churches Use Committee, set up under Section 43 of the Pastoral Measure, would be the first to take action. It would be realised within a diocese that there was one church too many and that there would be bound to be redundancy, and

under Section 43 it would be its duty to secure alternative uses for the church. If it could not find an alternative use, it would report to the Church Commissioners.
It would also at the same time, as the Minister has told us, consult the local planning authority. This would be reported to the Church Commissioners who, under Section 42, would set up an Advisory Board for Redundant Churches to give advice on the historic and architectural merits of the building under consideration. If the Church is to be preserved, the board would consult the Redundant Churches Fund to see whether there were funds available to meet it.
It emphasises the great importance of that Committee. It will be remembered that it is its duty under Section 42 of the Measure to be concerned with historic and architectural qualities of any church, or part of a church, and that therefore consideration as to preservation shall be on architectural and historical merit and not on any other matters which might come forward. Presumably, this committee will consist more of laymen than of church men, and I am sure that the board will be of the very highest calibre. Its advice will go to a committee which is set up under Section 44 and which is described as a committee of the board. That committee presumably will act for the Church Commissioners in preparing redundancy schemes. If the Redundant Churches Fund is able to take on the load of preservation, the scheme will provide for that. The alternative will be a scheme for alternate use or a scheme for preservation.
It is most important to consider the matter of consultation with the public. We have heard that at the initial stages in the diocese the local planning authority will have been consulted, but the main decision as to whether or not the church is to be preserved will move to the Advisory Board, which has the final say as to whether or not the church is worthy to be preserved. If the Redundant Churches Fund says "However worthy it is to be preserved, we have no money left", then their hand is forced, but in normal circumstances it will be the Advisory Board which takes what is pretty near to a final decision.
I turn to deal with the preparation by the committee of the board of the redundancy scheme. This involves the question of informing the public, and is provided for in Section 50 (4), on page 39 of the Pastoral Measure:
The Commissioners shall publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality in which the redundant building is situated a notice stating the effect of the draft scheme … The Commissioners shall consider any representations duly made with respect to the draft scheme …
Presumably at that stage if there is within 28 days a representation—

Mr. Michael English: Could the hon. Member tell me if this is not a lesser degree of publicity than is required now by the local authority under the new Town and Country Planning Act?

Mr. Allason: I was coming on to compare it. My emphasis is on the fact that the minimum of publicity is given in this case. There will be 28 days for the public to make any protest. If this protest is successful, no doubt the Board will consider again the matter of the redundancy scheme and perhaps consider alternative uses. If one hears that a really delightful church is about to be demolished and feels strongly about it, all one can do is within 28 days to write in and make other suggestions.

Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend makes it sound very easy, but 28 days is not a long time. Could provision be made for a large notice to be affixed to a doomed building so that those who see it can realise that it is threatened?

Mr. Allason: I certainly cannot find anything to that effect in the Measure. I am not here expounding the Measure as mine; I am only expounding my explanation of the Measure, because I think it is important. I stand to be contradicted on what I have said, but I certainly feel that this is rather inadequate. I found some difficulty in following the Minister on the extent to which such a redundant church is subject to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968 and I intervened. Clause 2 of this Bill states:
Section 40 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 … shall not apply to the execution of works for the demolition, in pursuance of a pastoral or redundancy scheme … of a redundant building … or a part of such a building.

So it appears to me that this is an extension. At present, under the Town and Country Planning Act a church in use is exempt from the operation of Part V of the Town and Country Planning Act, which deals with preservation. The Minister told us that after the church had ceased to have the scheme applied to it, it would then come under the Planning Act, but by that time it will either have been demolished or put to another use.
I do not think we ought to consider that it is in any way covered during the period, which is the essential period, from the preservationists' attempt to stop a charming building being demolished, and I believe it is not only Section 40 but also Section 50 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968 which will not apply—the latter providing that where a listed building is becoming derelict and no one will maintain it, the local planning authority may make a compulsory preservation order to preserve the building. Section 50 of the Act excludes an ecclesiastical building for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes. As I understand it, we are extending that also to cover a redundant church prior to its being demolished, and removing the possibility of preserving that church before it has been demolished.

Mr. Skeffington: I hope that I may be allowed to explain this again. In the new Town and Country Planning Act, from 1st January all buildings which had some status under previous legislation became automatically now listed buildings. That protection continues up to the period that a demolition order is approved, so during the whole of the waiting period the preservation status is maintained and nothing can be done. It is only when procedure under the Pastoral Measure, and in no way affected by this Bill, has gone through the whole process, and when the demolition order has been signed, that preservation ceases. Up to that point all the status is preserved.

Mr. Allason: I think we shall have to return to that in Committee. Clause 2 of this Bill appears to contradict this, and I am at some loss to understand the meaning of Clause 2.
Now we come to the question of the preservation or acquisition by the Minister of churches and other buildings. This


may happen under Section 66 of the Pastoral Measure, under which the Minister may acquire a redundant church. This is presumably the occasion when the redundant church has run out of cash or an extremely expensive building is under consideration which the Redundant Churches Fund cannot handle with limited supplies of money. The Minister may acquire the church under that provision, or alternatively under Clause 4 of the Bill which deals with places of religious worship outside the Church of England. I wonder whether this really is going to happen, or whether this is an emergency operation just in case there might be such a building? Is it really the intention of the Minister to operate this power to acquire? For example, he already has the power to acquire historic buildings, and I should like to know how many he has acquired so far.

Mr. Skeffington: None, but shortly some, or one, will be acquired.

Mr. Allason: Again when he comes to acquire an historic building he will do so under the 1953 Act and the money will come from the Land Fund, but under this Bill the Land Fund is expressly excluded under Clause 6. Where indeed is this money coming from? Is there to be a special vote on each occasion when this happens? I am suspicious about this. Looking at the explanatory memorandum under the financial effects of the Bill there is mention of the £200,000 coming into the Redundant Churches Fund, and no mention of any further sums. As this gives the Minister a new power to acquire buildings, it is odd that there should not be some mention of the possibility of there being further charges on the Exchequer.
If this is going to happen, we come to the question of what happens to the building afterwards. Presumably there is provision in the Measure for charging fees for admission. I do not think the Minister of Housing and Local Government can have any experience of looking after a building of this sort, preserving it, providing custodians and generally maintaining it, whereas the Ministry of Public Building and Works has such experience. Its record in connection with ancient monuments is absolutely brilliant. I question whether it is helpful to the general interests of efficiency for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government

to set up a system of custodians and an architects' department to look after this, when the Ministry of Public Building and Works already does it so well.
It was provided in the Pastoral Measure that it would be the Ministry of Public Building and Works which would do this. For some technical reason a building needs to be treated as an historic building while being purchased, but there should be some possibility of converting it from being an historic building into an ancient monument if the intention is to treat it as an ancient monument and to provide custodians. Therefore, I should have thought that it should be possible to make the conversion that I have suggested. The Pastoral Measure envisages that it would go to the Ministry of Public Building and Works, and in consequence this Bill amends the Pastoral Measure.

Clause 3 says:
shall have effect with the substitution, for any reference to the Minister of Public Building and Works, of a reference to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

I wonder what the constitutional position is. My impression of the Pastoral Measure was that it was presented to Parliament and that Parliament could accept or reject it but could not amend it. Here we find that Parliament is proposing that it should be amended. This is not the only amendment. In Section 7(3) there is another amendment.

Mr. English: The position is quite simple. An Act of Parliament can amend any Measure. A Measure can also amend an Act of Parliament within certain defined limits set out under the Act of Parliament which gave power to pass Measures. A Measure when put before the House is in the same position as an Order of a Minister which can also amend an Act of Parliament and which could be amended by an Act of Parliament. A Measure is put before the House for approval or rejection in the same way as Orders are put before the House for negative or positive procedure.

Mr. Allason: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his exposition of the constitutional position. I think it will come as a surprise to a number of churchmen. I agree that Parliament can do anything—except change a man into a woman.
Is it really polite to the Church Assembly, without as much as by your leave, to make the amendment? I should have thought it would be more polite to request the Church Assembly to amend their own Measure. I agree that the Church Assembly had power to amend an Act of Parliament, but the Assembly Measure comes before the Houses of Parliament who assent to it, and the Houses of Parliament clearly have power to amend their own Measures, so I do not think the corollary is a useful example of the type of thing we are considering.
However, on the general principle I think we are all keen to preserve churches of historic and architectural merit, and to the extent that this Bill is doing that we give it a very hearty welcome. There are details that we want to discuss further, but I hope that this Bill will receive a Second Reading.

The Chairman: It might be for the convenience of the Committee to bear in mind that this is a Second Reading debate and that there will be full Committee stage if a Second Reading is given to the Bill this morning.

11.17 a.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: As the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has just said, all of us here and most Members in the House will sympathise with the primary purpose of this Bill, but there are one or two questions which arise and at least one apprehension on which I should like some reassurance from my hon. Friend, whose exposition in general was admirably clear.
One point that the hon. Member has just made is attractive on face value—that some of the buildings should be handed to the Ministry of Public Building and Works for their guardianship. I think the distinction here is that the ancient monuments which the Ministry of Public Building and Works looks after are almost always buildings which are unused for ordinary purposes or uninhabited. They take over an uninhabited, half-ruined castle, not a castle that is still occupied by a family and assisted by a grant from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on the advice of the Historic Buildings Council.
That brings me to the first point I wanted to ask about. Is there any limit to the alternative uses to which these buildings could be put? Presumably there would be purposes that would be considered suitable both by the Ministry and by the Church authorities, but how wide a latitude would be shown in estimating suitability? Would it be considered a suitable use if, for instance, like St. John's, Smith Square, which has been so happily and beautifully restored to its pristine excellence, they were to be used for concerts, lectures and discussions? I assume that that would be suitable. Would a youth club be a suitable use? It might lead to a certain amount of banging about. Would a clinic be suitable? It would be unusual, but I am not sure that it would be altogether unsuitable. It is worth thinking about.
Would it be considered suitable to make these buildings over for the use of religious worship by people of other faiths? When I say "other faiths" I do not mean only other Christian denominations. I mean other world faiths of whose adherents there are, as we know, increasing numbers now in this country or coming to this country. In other parts of the world we have seen great Christian churches which have been for many centuries, for historical reasons, adapted for use as mosques—not altogether with happy results aesthetically because of the different orientation—but none the less in principle I cannot see any objection to the use of a redundant church for the worship of a community of Sikhs, Moslems, Hindus, and so on.

Mr. John Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman give way? Surely this matter will be settled not by the Government but by the Diocesan Uses Committee, which would presumably seriously restrict the uses to which they would agree.

Mr. Driberg: I would hope that they would not severely restrict them, except for the primary purpose of preserving a building of architectural and historic interest. This is not primarily a matter for the Government, but presumably the Government have been engaged in consultations with the ecclesiastical authorities, and I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend can enlighten us about this when he replies.
The other main point that I want to make is that I am still not quite clear or happy about Clause 2 of the Bill. I do not think that this is only a Committee point; otherwise I would not weary this Second Reading Committee with it. It seems to me to be fairly fundamental. At first sight it would seem that to some extent this Clause contradicts the primary purpose of the Bill, in so far as it would enable the ecclesiastical authorities in some cases to demolish buildings of historic or architectural interest. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead said that the Advisory Board would take "what is pretty near to a final decision" on such a matter, but if a board is advisory it is only advisory: it does not take final decisions.
I am afraid that there have been many examples during the present century of the destruction of churches—which would probably now not be destroyed—by the ecclesiastical authorities, for reasons which seemed to them to be good. I do not like entrusting them always with a final authority for this purpose. The older Members among us will recall such London churches as St. John's, Red Lion Square, which admittedly was partly destroyed in the blitz but which could have been at least partly restored. There was also St. Mary's, Charing Cross Road. These churches were not all of the highest architectural merit, but at the same time they were not truly redundant. Also, tastes and fashions in architecture change. We now think much more of Victorian Gothic—

Mr. English: Some of us.

Mr. Driberg: —those of us who are reasonably in touch with current developments of taste—than was thought half-a-century ago, or in my youth, which was half-a-century ago.
Apart from changes in fashion and taste, there is also the point of changes in population. New towns and new cities are being built and it may be that churches which appeared redundant 10 or 20 years ago would now serve a useful purpose. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be well aware of a particularly beautiful church in the park at Cranford in Middlesex, which might well have been declared redundant before the suburbs started creeping out to within a few yards of it. It was only saved

by the genius of one priest who went there and did a great deal for it. Before that, it could have been considered redundant, particularly as it has some markedly baroque features, of which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) disapproves. Anyway, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could give some reassurance about this matter.
In my view, the most flagrant example of abuse of their powers by the ecclesiastical authorities has occurred only in the last two or three years in the great cathedral of Salisbury—

Mr. Robert Cooke: Hear, hear.

Mr. Driberg: —where the Dean and Chapter have behaved in what many people consider to be a most irresponsible way, and have certainly demolished "part of the building", which they had no moral right to do, at least without much fuller consultation. I know that the drastic changes that they made are controversial—there were arguments on both sides—but to many people in Wiltshire this seemed to be an act of vandalism.

Mr. Cooke: The hon. Member will be aware that they sold the great screen for scrap, and parts of it are now being offered for sale by a scrap merchant.

Mr. Driberg: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The Gilbert Scott screen has been lying in a scrap merchant's yard, in pieces. Many people considered that it had great merit, both functionally and intrinsically. I have made that point and I hope my hon. Friend, the Government and the church authorities generally are aware of these dangers.
I was interested to hear my hon. Friend say that 800 churches might be becoming redundant within the foreseeable future. In various dioceses figures have been issued in the last year or two which, if anything, suggest that the figure might be rather higher. I know of one diocese in which the figure of 200 churches has been mentioned. This fills me with some alarm and apprehension. One understands the difficulties of the Church authorities but I beg them, through my hon. Friend, to use their powers with great discretion. In particular I entirely agree with a suggestion made by the


hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), that there should be some provision by which prominent notices are displayed outside a threatened church, in addition to the advertising in the local Press which has been mentioned.
Subject to these qualifications, in which naturally I may be wrong, I support what has been said and I am glad to welcome the Bill as a whole.

11.28 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: I am particularly glad to follow the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), not least because I want to support him in his championship of Victorian churches. Nothing plays a more important part, both in the landscape and townscape of this country, than churches, and in the latter category those churches are often Victorian and sometimes modern. One only has to go to the City of Liverpool to see that. So in this discussion we are not only talking of ancient churches.
I hope I may be able to help the Committee without wearying it by saying a word or two about my own experiences in the matter of redundant churches. I had the great good fortune to be asked by the Archbishop of York, after the General Election of 1964, when I had more time on my hands than previously, to act as chairman of a commission in the city of York to look at redundant churches. This was a preliminary job in anticipation of what we are now discussing. We were asked to look at the problem in that city, where there are 16 mediaeval churches within the walls and no sort of expectation in the future of a population within the walls likely to justify that number of churches. We considered with great care the uses to which these churches should be put.
I believe the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, if I may presume to suggest it, is that a number of the uses which he suggested are not suitable in every case. The question of suitability is not a general but a particular proposition. We looked at about a dozen churches which are likely at some date to become redundant. Some are of such superb quality that it would be absolutely wrong to put them to any other use at all. Those are the kinds of churches

which should either be in the hands of the Redundant Churches Fund or should be taken over by the Ministry of Works. There are also an enormous number of other churches the exteriors of which are highly important but whose interiors have through neglect, changes or rebuilding, become quite unimportant. It is these for which other uses can best be found as for example, a concert hall, a youth club or a clinic.
The question of other uses I cannot answer specifically, but certainly we welcome the suggestion that such churches should be used by other religious faiths, and I would think that in suitable circumstances other uses could be applicable. Perhaps it would help the Committee to know something of the thinking on these matters in the preliminary work.
The Bill, which I welcome, contains safeguards which are very considerable. The position of this Advisory Board, appointed by two Archbishops on the advice of the Prime Minister, could not be more dignified. Its status will do an enormous amount to allay the fears of those who are concerned with the maintenance of our churches that really fine churches may be destroyed in the future. There is this enormous safeguard, an elaborate procedure for looking at uses and so on, which I believe will work well. I have little doubt that it is an enormous step forward so far as redundant churches are concerned.
I have the great privilege of knowing the City of York fairly well ecclesiastically, since I represent it in the Church Assembly. In this House I represent London, so that I am, as it were, a two-headed monster.

Mr. Robert Cooke: A two-edged sword.

Mr. Worsley: Or a two-edged sword—and I have yet another capacity in Strasbourg. In York the aim is to raise £2 million to save York Minster, but if one looks at the cathedral in Strasbourg one sees a large notice stating that it comes under the Ministry des Beaux Arts. There we see a great difference between the French and English way of handling these affairs. I do not believe that anybody would wish to go that far,


but I am not sure that the situation we are creating by this Bill will be our final action. I do not think we can really say that the State is not interested in any church which is a living church.
Redundant churches are in a particular position, but we have to move further forward fairly soon. I say that for many reasons. The big church which is based on a small congregation in a small country village may be almost impossible to repair. The courage and enthusiasm with which those people try to do it is beyond praise, but we get the unhappy situation where a small congregation becomes wholly absorbed in money-raising, dominated by a church which, while it is extremely beautiful, prevents them carrying out their real purpose as a congregation. An ancient building can be a very demanding mistress.
We shall, therefore, have to move into a situation where a magnificent church cannot be regarded simply as the responsibility of perhaps the handful of people who happen to worship there. I am thinking of some of the Norfolk churches in tiny villages, part of our national—or international—heritage.
The Historic Buildings Council has been a fantastic success. It has established two things which could be critically important in helping churches still in use—and I speak of churches of all denominations. First, it has set a very high standard. Secondly, it has helped those who help themselves. It has given grants in such a way as to avoid the idea in people's minds that they can rely on the Government to do it for them. It has given grants only when people have been prepared to raise money themselves, to dig into their own pockets. I believe we can and should use this machinery as soon as the present financial stringency allows us to help churches which are still used when they are of good quality. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to indicate whether, providing the Historic Buildings Council had the money, there would be any legal difficulty in helping in this way a church which has a congregation. That would be a useful piece of information. Otherwise, we should be considering in Committee whether we ought not to go further ahead.
This Bill sets out a partnership between the Church and State—and here I am talking of the Church of England—in the maintenance of redundant churches. I hope that this is the beginning of a partnership between members of all Churches and the State to preserve our historical churches. If this is such a step, then this is a very important morning in the history of our historic churches.

11.37 a.m.

Mr. Michael English: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) in one of his capacities since he is my M.P. when I am living in London. I quite agree with him on most of his points. First, I agree with him that there ought to be some provision for churches before they become redundant, just as there is for other buildings. It has always seemed rather strange to me that we as a country should say that we are prepared to give support to an ancient layman's residence, or perhaps I should put it the other way round—a layman's ancient residence.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Not necessarily.

Mr. English: As the hon. Member points out, it may not even be that, but we are prepared to provide financial support for the residence of a person but not for the residence of a religious congregation.

Mr. Cooke: I hope the hon. Gentleman will make quite clear that the object of the Historic Buildings Council for historic houses is to preserve buildings for public enjoyment now and in the future. There is no question whatever of preserving buildings for the enjoyment of a person who happens to be living there.

Mr. English: The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) is revealing something of his own feelings. I was not attacking the principle of providing the historic house with a subsidy from the State. I was merely saying that that was much less justifiable than providing a subsidy for an historic church, whether or not there is a congregation. Indeed, there may be a far larger number of people concerned there than are concerned with the historic house. If the hon. Gentleman on another occasion wants to discuss the virtues of the Historic Buildings Council, I will do so with


pleasure, but I believe he is defending something which has not been attacked.
The situation is that there are in the country certain buildings which ought to be preserved, not for the benefit of any particular person but for the benefit of the country as a whole. They are part of our history and tradition and, therefore, I agree with the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) that we should treat them in this context, not as if they were something special, not because of ancient religious traditions so that as in the past we have appeared to be subsiding a particular place, but as historic buildings. Some may happen to be houses, some may happen to be Anglican churches or something else. It seems to me that this is the proper way of dealing with it.
There is, however, a corollary. Institutions which happen to be in a particular privileged position—as in this case, the Anglican Church—must accept that the State as a whole has certain rights over what they do. This is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). There is a difference between a redundant church and a redundant railway station in that the latter does not have the capacity of any degree of religious feeling on the part of any group of people.

Mr. John Smith: What about St. Pancras?

Mr. English: I am coming back to that. The position is that a church attaches to itself certain emotions on the part of believers in the faith who happen to worship in that church. There would be many who would be considerably upset on purely religious grounds if a church were converted into a Moslem mosque, a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley), but that has happened in the past. I recollect that St. Sophia's in Constantinople was converted into a mosque. That has happened in the past and, no doubt, it will happen again. It could happen, if desired, by good will rather than as a result of conquest as in the case I quoted. Nevertheless, there would be many of the Christian faith whose religious susceptibilities would be greatly upset if they thought that it was to happen. I am not saying that it would be right or wrong; I am just stating a fact.
It seems to me that when we have these churches it is entirely right to go through such procedures of the Church concerned before making alterations to a church, demolishing it or converting it into something else. What that church is not entitled to do—and I hope one hon. Member here who is on the Commission considering relations between Church and State will take the point I am getting at—is to say at that point, because the provisions and requirements of the particular church have been complied with, therefore the requirements of the State which wishes to preserve certain historic buildings irrespective of their character cannot be complied with as well. Nor is it entitled to say that, because it is one particular institution, it can get itself exempted from the provisions of the town planning laws of the United Kingdom.
If anybody doubts the validity of what I have said, he ought to talk to a few planners and people concerned with the preservation of historic buildings. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking well expressed the emotions which people have, not merely about a hand being taken away from the clock at St. Pancras, but when a portion of an ancient cathedral is demolished. Provisions stating that a building can be preserved should be applicable to lay buildings and to religious buildings of any kind. When my right hon. Friend comes to reply, I hope he will indicate how far he is prepared to accept Amendments to this Bill which are designed to that end, because there will possibly be one or two put down.
I do not have the slightest objection to money being provided by the State for the upkeep or protection of redundant or living churches, whether they happen to be of my own faith or of any other. What I have an objection to is anyone saying, "You are not going to do that. You are going to provide a subsidy and, in addition, you are not going to allow the country as a whole to have at least a right of veto about removal."
My hon. Friend asked a very relevant question. He asked: who is the Advisory Board advisory to? He said that, presumably because it is called "advisory", it is not the decisive body. I think I am right in saying that the decisive body is the Church Commissioners.


It is, in fact, an Advisory Board to the Church Commissioners. The point here is that ill some cases a conflict of interests can arise.
There may be a church which is redundant because nobody lives around it any more. It happens to be in the middle of a city and, although there are plenty of offices around, there is nothing else. There are no residents. Then somebody says, "It would be very useful for the development of this site if we could knock down that church." A very large sum of money indeed would come into the Church Commissioners' hands, and they are precisely the same people who have to decide what happens to the church. I am not suggesting for a moment that they would decide the matter on those motives. What I am saying is that if they did decide to pull it down, they would be in a very difficult position to defend their decision, however good it was, because nowhere else in the country do we allow this to happen. The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) quoted the case of St. Pancras. British Railways got away with it at Euston, as a result of which a preservation order was put on St. Pancras.

Mr. John Smith: I feel I ought to explain, in case of misunderstanding, that I simply meant that there are places other than religious buildings where feelings and sentiment apply; and, indeed, feelings and sentiment must be considered when the question of their preservation or demolition is being considered.

Mr. English: I quite agree. The hon. Member is, in fact, really supporting the point I am making. Incidentally, my feeling about railways is probably more considerable than those of other members of the Committee, since my father was commercial manager of one and I have always been interested in them for that reason.
If a building is not covered by this Bill or by the Measure, it may get a preservation order put on it. To quote an example, there is a hotel in the centre of Nottingham. It is an ancient building, but the Corporation of Nottingham desired to tear it down. However, through the efforts of some citizens of the town and, ultimately, of the Historic Buildings Inspector of my

right hon. Friend's Ministry, it is now impossible for them to tear it down. It has therefore gone back to being used for its original purpose, instead of being demolished to fit in with a scheme. This would not necessarily occur in the case of a redundant church. The Advisory Board might advise that it ought to be preserved for one reason or another, but the Church Commissioners might decide that they did not wish to preserve it. They could tear it down and, as I understand it, they would be exempted from the normal provisions of the Town Planning Acts. The Minister of Housing and Local Government could not send an Historic Buildings Inspector down to hold a special inquiry and could not decide that the building should not be pulled down.
Is this the correct situation? If it is, then I should like to know from my right hon. Friend whether he is prepared to allow the Bill to be amended in order that that sort of ultimate inquiry could take place. I do not think it is any use saying that the people concerned are highly moral, honest people who will never make a mistake. Human beings do make mistakes and we need that right of ultimate recourse to the normal procedure, which is the protection which, as citizens, we all have from other people tearing down buildings which we wish to remain standing.

11.52 a.m.

Mr. John Smith: This Bill is clearly a result of very complicated and delicate negotiations, and I certainly would not wish to upset the result at all. To have achieved any result is a triumph. Further, the Bill is in a way a triumph for that body, the Friends of Friendless Churches, and its presiding genius, Mr. Ivor Bulmer-Thomas. He has certainly been the John the Baptist and occasionally the Joan of Arc of this movement for some years. In a way this Bill is a vindication of his activities and I salute him. It usually takes 20 years in this country to change official thinking on any matter. That is the interval between the time when people are young enough to receive ideas, and old enough to have the power or influence to put them into effect. Mr. Ivor Bulmer-Thomas has been active for only 12 years and under that head, also, we should salute him.
One point in this Bill worries me a bit, and it was alluded to by the previous speaker. The result which is expected to take place is as follows. The Advisory Board will consider a church and may decide that it is redundant. There will then be a period in which another use will be sought for it, and other bodies will be sought who may be willing to come to the rescue of the church financially. If after that period no use and no outside resources can be found, then the Church will in practice be demolished and the site sold. At first glance that sounds fine, but, in practice, outside bodies interested in the preservation of buildings will always hold back until the last possible moment. With the fund in existence they will inevitably hold back in the hope that the money will be coming from official sources.
Secondly, the Advisory Board is a body ecclesiastically appointed, and, although it is tremendously important that the members of it should be concerned only with aesthetic considerations, and although they will no doubt be borne in mind, it will inevitably be a body with a split personality. A body appointed in that way is inevitably going to be composed of people who are churchmen as well as aesthetes. Therefore, their decisions—and they are going to be decisions although they are advisory, because I cannot imagine that their advice will ever be turned down—are not going to be solely aesthetic ones.
Next, once the procedure has been gone through for demolition of a building, although it may be of the quality suitable for listing, or, indeed, may be listed, that will prevent other people from coming forward to save it. I am not clear whether the search for a use means a search for any use, but I cannot imagine that it does. I think the use to which the building can be put will be settled by the diocesan uses committee, and the use which that committee will accept is bound to be—and probably correctly—somewhat circumscribed. I envisaged cases arising where a church has gone through the whole procedure and is, at the end of it, demolished when it need not be demolished. There are cases where outside bodies have in the past preserved ecclesiastical buildings and we are very glad that they have. For example, in

times past had there been insistence on demolition we should have lost Tewkesbury Abbey and, to take an even more extreme example, Woodspring Priory, which was converted into a house and would not, of course, be considered now. Therefore, there is a risk of losing buildings which could be saved.
If the Nonconformist Churches and the Anglican Church come together, there will clearly be many redundant buildings, and a very high proportion of those are of high quality. At the moment there is the ecclesiastical exemption, as it is called. But I cannot help wondering whether this is not the time to end the ecclesiastical exemption. I say this in a spirit of friendliness towards the Church, but it is the ecclesiastical exemption which prevents the State from helping ecclesiastical buildings in the way that it helps other buildings. Indeed, speaking in another part of this building, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said the year before last:
I can see the difficulty which would face any Government that was asked to provide State funds for the maintenance of cathedrals"—
the debate was about cathedrals, but the argument applies equally here—
without, at the same time, the cathedrals being subjected to the full effect of the Town and Country Planning Acts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 25th April, 1967; Vol. 282, c. 525.]
Therefore, the two branches of my sole point about this Bill are these. First, can we in some way ensure that the Advisory Board is, in fact, a body which is concerned with aesthetic considerations? Secondly, in order to prevent the possible loss of buildings which have been right through the procedure and whose rescue appears at the very end when it is too late, could we not reconsider the possibility, of ending the ecclesiastical exemption, which in my opinion would be of great advantage to the Church and certainly financially advantageous.

12.1 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: I should like briefly to follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley). I regret that not enough attention is given explicitly in the Bill—thought the Minister may have something in the back of his mind which he could tell us about—with regard to


what my hon. Friend called the living churches. I refer to those parish and other religious buildings which are struggling to continue in existence in actual use and which are by no means redundant from the point of view of their users but which, nevertheless, carry a crippling burden of fabric repair and maintenance.
I hope the Minister appreciates the paradox. A parish church may struggle on for a decade or more to maintain its fabric in order but at last may fail to do so and cease to be available for use as a place of active, present-day worship. The church may at that point become redundant and may well thereafter under the Bill qualify for the sort of assistance which, had it been available at an earlier stage, might have enabled it to have continued in fuller use. I hope the Minister appreciates that it would appear from the facts and figures involved—particularly the figures referred to by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) showing that over 800 churches are likely to become redundant—that the pool of redundant churches will be self-liquefying in terms of the provision of funds.
If upward of 1,000 churches become redundant, three procedures could then obtain. First, the churches could be diverted to some other revenue-producing use. Second, they could be demolished and the sites sold; and third, they could be declared of historical interest and preserved. I cannot believe that two of these procedures, namely, the revenue-producing use and the disposal of the cleared site, will not produce overwhelmingly sufficient funds to provide a self-liquefying pool so that the small percentage which will come into the category of needing to be preserved will find all the funds they need in the turnover of redundant churches.
The Minister will note that the Pastoral Measure which is associated with this legislation requires that the Church Commissioners subscribe only one-third of any revenues or proceeds yielded by the disposal of a site, or the lease of it, or some other purpose, to be diverted into the Redundant Churches Fund. One wonders whether it would not have been a better bargain, both for the Government and for the nation as a whole, if the Government had persuaded the Church Commissioners to divert a far greater proportion

of the yield from the disposal of sites or the revenues obtained from leasing into the Redundant Churches Fund. They might then have had greater scope for the use of moneys which Parliament proposes to make available to help churches which are struggling to keep clear of the redundancy margin and to maintain a useful and active life.
If the Minister, in view of this general criticism of the basic approach to the Bill, cannot give any firm undertaking, would he see if he can find some means of stopping churches straying into redundancy and thereby qualifying for funds which the Government would be forced to make available?

12.5 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I, too, would like to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) has said. I am sure that the aims of this Bill are good, but it has taken along time to get it and it has serious defects. It may be possible to amend it at a later stage. It may also be helpful if the Minister could tell us a little more about what is behind it.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster paid special tribute to Mr. Ivor Bulmer-Thomas, but we should not forget that Mr. Thomas was regarded as a considerable nuisance by many powerful people in the Church of England, that he has only recently been regarded as a "respectable" person and has still some pretty strong enemies.

12.6 p.m.

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

12.41 p.m.

Sitting resumed.

Mr. Cooke: I had just implied that but for the work of Mr. Ivor Bulmer-Thomas we would have lost quite a number of churches of considerable architectural and historic interest. It is certainly true that it is a result of the agitations of such as he over a long period that we are faced with this Bill today. No doubt, it will do some good, but I believe it contains grave defects. I can see nothing in the Bill that will prevent


the demolition of any church of the Church of England that the Church is determined to demolish. It may badly need the money from a valuable site in order to use it for important pastoral work elsewhere, such as to build a number of new churches on a housing estate. That is a right and proper aspiration, but it is not to be restrained by this Measure from demolishing a fine building if it is so determined, despite all the advisory committees and the other machinery.
We are told that there are redundant churches, and a figure has been mentioned, but at least one hon. Member has made the point that a church that is redundant today may well turn out to be of considerable use in the future. One knows of the difficult situation in a city where the population has moved away and one is left with the churches which have stood there for centuries. But even in a city one can conceive of the possibility in the future that the population will be brought back, as is happening to a certain extent in the City of London. There is a definite trend to build residential accommodation, and, rather than spoil the country with new housing estates, it is good that this should be done. Certainly the dock area of Bristol is to be redeveloped in the not too distant future, and therefore churches in towns may not be redundant after all.
There is also the case of the country area, where there are so many imponderables. A new town may appear quite unexpectedly and a fine large church that the congregation now finds a struggle to maintain may become the centre of a thriving community. Indeed, it may be the only building of significance in an entirely new town.
I feel that it would have been better at the outset if there had been constructed a national survey or map of all the fine buildings, both ecclesiastical and secular—and, for that matter, all the really fine pieces of scenery. Around all these things which we would all wish to see preserved for all time, new roads, new airports, towns and so forth should be disposed. Instead of that we find ourselves fighting a losing battle for historic churches and other buildings against the onslaught of the motorway the improved road, the airport or whatever. The whole thing is being done the wrong way round. I

welcome this Measure because I believe it will do some good, even though it should really be done quite the other way.
Much has been made of the funds that will be available. I believe that they will prove to be woefully inadequate. As I see it, the Church is to provide a maximum of £100,000 in each five-year period from the proceeds of the sale of sites of demolished buildings. Surely this amount, with the two sums of £200,000, will make a total woefully inadequate to deal with the problems which will arise. Anyone who has knowledge of the cost of restoring St. John's, Smith Square, saved by the energy of the local inhabitants and others, when no longer required for church purposes, will know the vast sums that were required there.
We seek to preserve buildings, but buildings preserved with no use attached to them are perhaps not particularly valuable except as part of the landscape; and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us a little more about the possible uses to which buildings might be put and the co-operation which one might expect from other agencies of the State—the local authorities and other ministries for that matter; because with a little co-operation between all concerned it might well be possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) suggested, to find satisfactory alternative uses.
I am glad the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) took up the suggestion I made in an earlier intervention about giving proper notice to interested members of the public when a building is threatened with redundancy and possible demolition. I can see no reason why an adequate notice board should not be affixed to a building when those procedures are being followed. This method of notification can be far more effective than something in small print in a local newspaper, perhaps with a tiny circulation. In any case, I can see no possible objection to it. If there is a statutory objection, let us remove the statutory difficulties. Certainly, it could do no possible harm. If the Minister says that the countryside and townscape are already littered with notices, I hope he would agree that a discreet notice of this kind is hardly a massive addition to


the kind of thing that is put on commercial premises, unchecked by the planners.
An ecclesiastical building falls into the category which this Bill is seeking to help, and the procedures are lengthy and complicated. What is to prevent a very rapid run down in the condition of a building while discussions are going on?—because I do not imagine that a building will be declared redundant in the prime of its condition. One of the reasons for which it will be chosen as redundant is that it is in such structural condition that it would be uneconomic to restore it. It might be a fine building but beyond repair so that it comes within the scope of this Measure. But what will be done to prevent vandalism destroying worth-while features in the interior—for example, the windows—or perhaps even the destruction of the building itself by fire or some other accident while these discussions are taking place?
Recently, I was told of a Victorian church in a great city, which was shortly to be demolished. I went to see it and discovered in it certain features which in my opinion were well worth saving. There was a quite fine Victorian stone reredos with images on it, and there were at least two windows which could have been used elsewhere, as well as certain other fittings. The authorities told me that they would be delighted if I would remove these and re-erect them elsewhere. I said that I would, and I agreed to pay a nominal sum towards the funds of this particular church. But when I went to the church I found that it had been broken into, and when I went to investigate further I found that everything worth saving had been wantonly destroyed; and, although the local police knew that vandalism had been done in the building, nothing had been done to prevent further such action. Fires had been lit within the building and the stone of the reredos had been thrown down and was smashed beyond repair.
This kind of thing is happening all the time and it will happen to churches coming within the scope of this Measure. Hands will then be thrown up in horror, and it will be said that it is difficult to do anything about it and that the building must go. The transitional period, therefore, will be a difficult one.
We have heard about the screen in Salisbury cathedral. There was far too much secrecy about that. Had it been more widely advertised that the screen was to be removed I am sure another place would have been found for it, if not in its entirety. Pieces could have been preserved in other, perhaps Victorian, churches in the Salisbury diocese. I know of one church in my own diocese, of which I am patron, which could have accommodated some of this Victorian material. Instead, it was left in a builders' yard and is now being sold piecemeal. I have no objection to a church disposing of surplus fittings, but selling to a middle-man who makes a profit from breaking them up is not a very satisfactory way out. Organs and fine organ cases have been destroyed by vandals in unoccupied buildings, and not enough effort has been made to find a new home for them.
There are many fittings in a church due for demolition which could be used elsewhere—things like fine timber, tiles and even stonework. Not enough effort is being made in that direction. There is power here to help with the preservation of parts of buildings, but will the Minister say whether that provision means that part of a building can be preserved where it stands or that money could be provided for the removal of fine fixtures and their re-use elsewhere? This was something which the Historic Buildings Council was unable to do in the case of secular buildings. With modern techniques quite a lot of fine architectural features could be removed elsewhere.
During the time when the procedures in this Bill are being worked out—and we have heard that it will take a good deal of time—there will be a tendency for further damage to occur to structures. Nothing like enough knowledge exists among those concerned about the very rapid deterioration which can take place in a building which is unoccupied and uncared for. Even the blocking of a vital rainpipe for a month during the course of a rainy winter can do a great deal of damage to a building which could prevent it being economically restored.
Coming back to Ivor Bulmer-Thomas, in the case of Shobdon church, whose 18th century plaster work is well known, he was probably obstructed by certain


members of the church in his efforts to make the place weatherproof. Eventually he succeeded, but damage was done because of the lack of knowledge and the absence of definite action at an early stage.
I have dealt with a number of details, and I conclude by saying that I hope this Bill will do some good, though I feel we are being asked to go about it in quite the wrong way. What should be done is that those of our churches which for achitectural or historic reasons are regarded as our finest should be properly listed, scheduled and protected; and whatever their status in the eyes of the Church, whether they are likely to continue for the foreseeable future as buildings for worship, as buildings in use, or possibly to become redundant—whatever their possible future use—they should receive a measure of protection and help if they are in need of repair.
Under this Measure it is quite possible for a parish to hang on to a fine building which may be too large or perhaps difficult to maintain. It may be a magnificent church, like some of the East Anglian churches, with a dwindling congregation, and it is neglected for a quarter of a century because the funds are not available, so that it is then found to be in such a condition that it is impossible to repair. This can happen despite this Measure. We were told that there would be hundreds of churches becoming redundant over the next 20 years. Many of those will be neglected from this day for the next 20 years, and we shall then be told that they cannot be saved.
The Church now has an idea of having quinquennial architectural inspections with recommendations made by experts, but it may happen that repairs are botched so that more harm than good is done. Therefore, although this

Measure honestly means well, it will not tackle the problem. But perhaps it is a good beginning. I hope that the Ministry, perhaps with people in the Ministry of Works who are skilled in these matters, may manage to educate those who care about historic buildings in what can be done by means of first aid repairs or first rate repair and maintenance, because there is so little knowledge about this, particularly in certain Church circles. If that knowledge were available some problems would not arise. I have spoken on a wide variety of aspects of this topic which may enable the Minister to give us a fairly full reply.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the debate be now adjourned.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Cooke: Mrs. Jeger, I believe that it is possible to go on until 1.15 if the Committee agrees to do so.

The Chairman: I understand that this is a question for the Chair. There is a provision whereby we can continue for a further 15 minutes, but only with the agreement of the Chair, and only if it is felt by all members of the Committee that this will enable us to conclude our business. But I feel, in fairness to the Minister, since he has been asked many detailed questions, that it would possibly be for the convenience of the Committee to meet again. We have already provided for a sitting at 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday next.

Mr. Cooke: I have absolutely no wish to press the Minister to do anything he does not want to do, and if it is more convenient to meet next Wednesday I will withdraw my suggestion. I was merely trying to help.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee adjourned at one minute to One o'clock till Wednesday next, 26th February, 1969, at half-past Ten o'clock.

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Chairman)

Alison, Mr.

Allason, Mr.

Bishop, Mr.

Blenkinsop, Mr.

Cooke, Mr. Robert

Driberg, Mr.

English Mr.

Harper, Mr.

Jackson, Mr. Peter M.

Mills, Mr. Peter

More, Mr.

Pearson, Sir Frank

Skeffington, Mr.

Smith, Mr. John

Thornton, Mr.

van Straubenzee, Mr.

Watkins, Mr. David

Worsley, Mr.